![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:55:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:01:07AM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > Some codepaths call ERR_PTR with possibly 0 argument, which is not > > a valid errno and rely on conversion from 0 to NULL pointer. > > Add ERR_OR_0_PTR function which accepts errnos and 0 as an argument. > > Sorry, no. ERR_PTR(0) is perfectly valid, you just don't want to return > the actualy value. E.g. we have a common idiom of: > > some_ptr = ERR_PTR(err); > if (IS_ERR(some_ptr)) > goto out_handle_err; > > and obsfucating this with new syntactic sugar is not a good idea. Um... Could somebody explain WTF is wrong with declaring that ERR_PTR(0) is NULL? Sure, if we run into a target where converting non-constant integer with value zero to void * does not result in null pointer, we'll need to adjust ERR_PTR(). So. Fscking. What? a) it's not a lot of adjustment, to start with b) any such target will require much more work on porting anyway; this part will be trivial. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-05-19 08:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||