Re: [PATCH 6/6] proc: use IS_ERR_OR_NULL()

Andrew Morton
2012-04-12T19:31:52Z

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > (4/12/12 9:23 AM), Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Cong Wang<xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > - if (mm&& !IS_ERR(mm)) {
> > > > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mm)) {
> > >
> > > I personally find original code way more readable.
> >
> > personally, me too. but new one is also acceptable to me.
>
> That now makes 4 votes that it's not an improvement, with no dissent
> (unless akpm's + proc-use-is_err_or_null.patch added to -mm tree
> should be counted as dissent): let's drop this patch.

I think it's OK. IS_ERR_OR_NULL encapsulates the concept "something
went wrong".

Not that I'm particularly passionate about it.