From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: check for propagation of error from platform_get_irq Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:18:44 +0300 Message-ID: <567FC914.4080705@cogentembedded.com> References: <1451157891-24881-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <567EF188.7020203@cogentembedded.com> <567EF895.6080702@cogentembedded.com> <567F141C.8010000@cogentembedded.com> <567F166B.7030208@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gilles Muller , Nicolas Palix , Michal Marek , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: Julia Lawall Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On 12/27/2015 9:13 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: >> Well, looking again, the patch should be good. I just thought its goal was >> to fix the code as well... > > I could do that for the irq < 0 case, but I think that in that case, kbuild > will only run the patch version, and the <= cases will not be reported on. > I don't have a general fix for the <= 0. Is it even correct to have < in > some cases and <= in others? That's a good question... In my prior fixes of this case I preferred to consider IRQ0 valid and so used 'irq < 0'. I myself don't share the "IRQ0 is invalid" sentiment... > julia MBR, Sergei