* [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
@ 2017-12-01 8:00 ` Christoffer Dall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christoffer Dall @ 2017-12-01 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Vasyl,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:48:17PM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote:
> Fix ptr_ret.cocci warnings:
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c:971:1-3: WARNING: PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO can be used
>
> Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
>
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci
For new code, sure it would make sense to use this.
But why is it worth changing existing code to use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@gmail.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> index 1f761a9991e7..28d85754320b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> @@ -1032,10 +1032,8 @@ static int vgic_its_cmd_handle_mapd(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
>
> device = vgic_its_alloc_device(its, device_id, itt_addr,
> num_eventid_bits);
> - if (IS_ERR(device))
> - return PTR_ERR(device);
>
> - return 0;
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(device);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
@ 2017-12-01 8:00 ` Christoffer Dall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christoffer Dall @ 2017-12-01 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vasyl Gomonovych
Cc: marc.zyngier, andre.przywara, linux-kernel, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel
Hi Vasyl,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:48:17PM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote:
> Fix ptr_ret.cocci warnings:
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c:971:1-3: WARNING: PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO can be used
>
> Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
>
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci
For new code, sure it would make sense to use this.
But why is it worth changing existing code to use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@gmail.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> index 1f761a9991e7..28d85754320b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> @@ -1032,10 +1032,8 @@ static int vgic_its_cmd_handle_mapd(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
>
> device = vgic_its_alloc_device(its, device_id, itt_addr,
> num_eventid_bits);
> - if (IS_ERR(device))
> - return PTR_ERR(device);
>
> - return 0;
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(device);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
2017-12-01 8:00 ` Christoffer Dall
@ 2017-12-04 11:11 ` Gomonovych, Vasyl
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gomonovych, Vasyl @ 2017-12-04 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoffer Dall
Cc: Christoffer Dall, marc.zyngier, eric.auger, andre.przywara,
wanghaibin.wang, linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kernel
Hi Christoffer
It is just syntax sugar of course
and in mentioned function context it looks harmonically because it is
in the end of function return statement.
But in context of around source files it is looks not so harmonically because
existing code uses old approach.
And this old approach is only in one place here.
So it is just a try to fix the warning and may be force to use it in a
future changes.
Regards Vasyl
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Vasyl,
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:48:17PM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote:
>> Fix ptr_ret.cocci warnings:
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c:971:1-3: WARNING: PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO can be used
>>
>> Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
>>
>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci
>
> For new code, sure it would make sense to use this.
>
> But why is it worth changing existing code to use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO?
>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> index 1f761a9991e7..28d85754320b 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> @@ -1032,10 +1032,8 @@ static int vgic_its_cmd_handle_mapd(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
>>
>> device = vgic_its_alloc_device(its, device_id, itt_addr,
>> num_eventid_bits);
>> - if (IS_ERR(device))
>> - return PTR_ERR(device);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(device);
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
--
Доброї вам пори дня.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
@ 2017-12-04 11:11 ` Gomonovych, Vasyl
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gomonovych, Vasyl @ 2017-12-04 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Christoffer
It is just syntax sugar of course
and in mentioned function context it looks harmonically because it is
in the end of function return statement.
But in context of around source files it is looks not so harmonically because
existing code uses old approach.
And this old approach is only in one place here.
So it is just a try to fix the warning and may be force to use it in a
future changes.
Regards Vasyl
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Vasyl,
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:48:17PM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote:
>> Fix ptr_ret.cocci warnings:
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c:971:1-3: WARNING: PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO can be used
>>
>> Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
>>
>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci
>
> For new code, sure it would make sense to use this.
>
> But why is it worth changing existing code to use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO?
>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> index 1f761a9991e7..28d85754320b 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> @@ -1032,10 +1032,8 @@ static int vgic_its_cmd_handle_mapd(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
>>
>> device = vgic_its_alloc_device(its, device_id, itt_addr,
>> num_eventid_bits);
>> - if (IS_ERR(device))
>> - return PTR_ERR(device);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(device);
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
--
?????? ??? ???? ???.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
2017-12-04 11:11 ` Gomonovych, Vasyl
@ 2017-12-04 19:40 ` Christoffer Dall
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christoffer Dall @ 2017-12-04 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gomonovych, Vasyl
Cc: Christoffer Dall, Christoffer Dall, marc.zyngier, eric.auger,
andre.przywara, wanghaibin.wang, linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm,
linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:11:22PM +0100, Gomonovych, Vasyl wrote:
> Hi Christoffer
>
> It is just syntax sugar of course
> and in mentioned function context it looks harmonically because it is
> in the end of function return statement.
> But in context of around source files it is looks not so harmonically because
> existing code uses old approach.
> And this old approach is only in one place here.
> So it is just a try to fix the warning and may be force to use it in a
> future changes.
ok, thanks.
-Christoffer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] KVM: arm: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO()
@ 2017-12-04 19:40 ` Christoffer Dall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christoffer Dall @ 2017-12-04 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:11:22PM +0100, Gomonovych, Vasyl wrote:
> Hi Christoffer
>
> It is just syntax sugar of course
> and in mentioned function context it looks harmonically because it is
> in the end of function return statement.
> But in context of around source files it is looks not so harmonically because
> existing code uses old approach.
> And this old approach is only in one place here.
> So it is just a try to fix the warning and may be force to use it in a
> future changes.
ok, thanks.
-Christoffer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread