Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1449136
| From | walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: is_err checking |
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rYru1-8mY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rY6zf-3ZH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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 >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
is_err checking Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-07-23 17:00 +0200
Re: is_err checking walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> - 2016-07-24 15:20 +0200
Re: is_err checking Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-07-24 17:40 +0200
csiph-web