Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dev_printk: add new dev_err_probe() helpers

Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-02T15:37:24Z

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:54:36PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 18:45 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:31:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:20:30PM +0200, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>

...

> > > > +#define dev_err_cast_probe(dev, ___err_ptr, fmt,
> > > > ...) ({ \
> > > > + ERR_PTR(dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(___err_ptr), fmt,
> > > > ##__VA_ARGS__)); \
> > > > +})
> >
> > After looking into the next patch I think this should be rewritten to use %pe,
> > hence should be an exported function. Or dev_err_probe() should be split to
> > a version that makes the difference between int and const void * (maybe using
> > _Generic()).
>
> I replied a bit in the other patch but I'm of the opinion that's likely just more
> complicated than it needs to be (IMO). Why is the PTR_ERR(___err_ptr) that bad? If we
> really want to have a version that takes pointer why not just:
>
> #define dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, ___err, fmt, ...) \
> dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(__err), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
>
> (yes, while _Generic() could be fun I'm trying to avoid it. In this case, I think
> having explicit defines is more helpful)

It seems dev_err_probe() already uses %pe, so we are fine.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko