From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] pxamci: remove an ifdef about CONFIG_REGULATOR Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:32:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20110510203233.GA5315@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1304971869-20161-1-git-send-email-ospite@studenti.unina.it> <20110509202325.GD16919@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110509203612.GC21323@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110510220214.916621d1.ospite@studenti.unina.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:36920 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950Ab1EJUcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2011 16:32:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110510220214.916621d1.ospite@studenti.unina.it> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Antonio Ospite Cc: Mark Brown , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, openezx-devel@lists.openezx.org, Chris Ball , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02:14PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: > I was blindly trusting code already in mainline again, and for that I > apologize, I finally took the time to look at the implementation > of IS_ERR() and test its use, and being IS_ERR(NULL) true it is not what > we want indeed, see the attached test program. > > So, I am going to remove the ifdefs anyway but use IS_ERR_OR_NULL(); > how does that sound? Am I still missing anything? That sounds a lot better, and should avoid the issue which caused me to throw out the original patch. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:32:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] pxamci: remove an ifdef about CONFIG_REGULATOR In-Reply-To: <20110510220214.916621d1.ospite@studenti.unina.it> References: <1304971869-20161-1-git-send-email-ospite@studenti.unina.it> <20110509202325.GD16919@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110509203612.GC21323@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110510220214.916621d1.ospite@studenti.unina.it> Message-ID: <20110510203233.GA5315@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02:14PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: > I was blindly trusting code already in mainline again, and for that I > apologize, I finally took the time to look at the implementation > of IS_ERR() and test its use, and being IS_ERR(NULL) true it is not what > we want indeed, see the attached test program. > > So, I am going to remove the ifdefs anyway but use IS_ERR_OR_NULL(); > how does that sound? Am I still missing anything? That sounds a lot better, and should avoid the issue which caused me to throw out the original patch.