lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: is_err checking


Am 23.07.2016 16:56, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> Code like the following looks a bit clunky to me:
>
> if (IS_ERR(data->clk) && PTR_ERR(data->clk) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> Is there any reason not to always use eg
>
> data->clk == ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> Code of the latter form is a bit more popular. Perhaps one could want
> something like:
>
> IS_ERR_VALUE(data->clk, -EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> but IS_ERR_VALUE is laready used for something else.
>

note: i do not like hiding behind #defines

did you actually see code like IS_ERR_VALUE(data->clk, -EPROBE_DEFER)
in the current kernel ?
because there is no second argument:

#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)

or is this a misunderstanding ?

re,
wh

> julia
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-24 16:01    [W:1.003 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site