From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: PTR_RET can be used Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:14:49 +0800 Message-ID: <20120729121449.GA16489@localhost> References: <20120729004550.GA7049@localhost> <5015280A.6000105@bfs.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: walter harms Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5015280A.6000105@bfs.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org > > --- linux.orig/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c 2012-07-29 08:41:09.703759534 +0800 > > +++ linux/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c 2012-07-29 08:41:14.255759643 +0800 > > @@ -100,9 +100,7 @@ static struct nf_hook_ops ebt_ops_filter > > static int __net_init frame_filter_net_init(struct net *net) > > { > > net->xt.frame_filter = ebt_register_table(net, &frame_filter); > > - if (IS_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter)) > > - return PTR_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter); > > - return 0; > > + return PTR_RET(net->xt.frame_filter); > > } > > > > i do not understand this, > ebt_register_table() return (struct ebt_table *) on success > > Does PTR_RET really return 0 if this is a propper pointer ? Right. Here is how PTR_RET defined. This patch does not change any behavior. static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr) { if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0; } Thanks, Fengguang