Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 May 2016 20:34:09 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] reset: allow to pass NULL pointer to reset_control_put() | From | Masahiro Yamada <> |
| |
Hi Arnd,
2016-05-04 20:24 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>: > On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:17:51 Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Currently, reset_control_put() just returns for error pointer, >> but not for NULL pointer. This is not reasonable. >> >> Passing NULL pointer should be allowed as well to make failure path >> handling easier. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> >> --- >> >> drivers/reset/core.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c >> index 181b05d..7bb16d1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/reset/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c >> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reset_control_get); >> >> void reset_control_put(struct reset_control *rstc) >> { >> - if (IS_ERR(rstc)) >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rstc)) >> return; >> >> module_put(rstc->rcdev->owner); > > Using IS_ERR_OR_NULL() normally indicates that there is something > wrong with the API, or with the caller. > > What exactly is the idea behind treating an error pointer as a valid > input to reset_control_put() here? Maybe it should just test for > NULL? >
I thought about that a bit, but there might be some (not nice) drivers that rely on the current behavior. I did not want to break any boards with my patch.
So, should it be
if (!rstc) return; or, perhaps
if (!rstc || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(rstc))) return;
?
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |