On 24.06.2020 17:16, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2020-06-24 16:04, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:25:33PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
And yeah, anyone who pipes up suggesting that places where an ERR_PTR value could be passed to probe_err() could simply refactor IS_ERR() checks with more uses of the god-awful PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() obfuscator gets a long stare of disapproval...
We could also have a probe_err_ptr() or something that took an ERR_PTR() instead if there really were an issue with explicitly doing this.
Yeah, for all my lyrical objection, a static inline <blah>_ptr_err() helper to wrap <blah>_err() with sensible type checking might actually be an OK compromise if people really feel strongly for having that utility.
I have proposed such thing in my previous iteration[1], except it was macro because of variadic arguments.
With current version we save 8 chars and hacky macro, with the old version we save only 4 chars and more clear construct - less tempting solution for me.
Personally I prefer the current version - it does not seems to me more dangerous than all these PTR_ERR, IS_ERR,ERR_PTR helpers, but can prevent expression split across multiple lines due to 80char limit.
Probably the simplest solution is to drop this patch, I will do it then.
[1]: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20181220102247.4911-4-a.hajda@samsung.com/
Regards
Andrzej
(and then we can debate whether it should also convert NULL to -ENOMEM and !IS_ERR to 0... :D)
Robin. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=074420c0-5ada8e5a-0745ab8f-0cc47a336fae-b...