Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pwm: Add pwm_cansleep() as exported API to users

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1571 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:57:39AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Le 28/01/2013 10:57, Thierry Reding a écrit :
> >On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36:07AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Le 28/01/2013 09:45, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit :
> >>>hi Thierry,
> >>>
> >>>On 01/26/2013 06:40 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>>>+{
> >>>>>+	return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
> >>>>>+}
> >>>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_cansleep);
> >>>>
> >>>>Would it make sense to check for NULL pointers here? I guess that
> >>>>passing NULL into the function could be considered a programming error
> >>>>and an oops would be okay, but in that case there's no point in making
> >>>>the function return an int. Also see my next comment.
> >>>
> >>>While it is unlikely to happen it is better to be safe, something like this
> >>>will do:
> >>>
> >>>return pwm ? pwm->chip->can_sleep : 0;
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ok. And what about:
> >>
> >>BUG_ON(pwm == NULL);
> >>return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
> >
> >I don't think we need that. In case pwm == NULL, dereferencing it will
> >oops anyway. So either we make it safe and return an error code, or we
> >let it oops without explicit BUG_ON().
> >
> 
> Calling this function with a NULL pointer is a programming error, so there
> is no error codes for such errors.

You could return -EINVAL if pwm == NULL.

> I propose to return bool, and let it oops if such case happens.

My point was that it will oops even if you don't use BUG_ON() so there
isn't so much point in using it explicitly.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]