Re: [PATCH 1/2] hid: usbhid: Return -ENOMEM instead of -1 for memory allocation failure

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:03:44PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> 
> > Silences the following smatch warning:
> > drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c:897 hiddev_connect() warn:
> > returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> > index 14599e2..50e2ab8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> > @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ int hiddev_connect(struct hid_device *hid, unsigned int force)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (!(hiddev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hiddev), GFP_KERNEL)))
> > -		return -1;
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> >  	init_waitqueue_head(&hiddev->wait);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hiddev->list);
> 
> Well, this would make sense only if the callers would be actualling doing 
> something useful with that return value. But the only check we are 
> performing at callsites is non-zero test ...

It is chicken and egg problem - callers can't use the result unless it
is meaningful and callee's do not bother to send anything meaningful
because nobody uses it...

If someone takes time to convert to proper return codes I think it would
be a good thing.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry