On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 02:12:42PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Saves repeating "(void __force *)__uptr" but it's less clear. Using > the output of PTR_RET() to determine the error rather than just > testing IS_ERR() is odd.
Ok, if it's confusing I won't mind if it gets changed. I intended to keep the code as short as possible, but.. ;) > For example, I *assume* __gptr_to_uptr() never returns NULL? Because > the __ret would be 0 for the old code. The new version is clearer, IMHO: > it would try to get_user() on that address. __gptr_to_uptr() could return 0 and it's not an error case. In that case it should indeed try a to get_user() on that address. > If you hate this variant, I can just s/PTR_RET/PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO/ instead. Your patch is fine. > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> > --- > arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h | 12 ++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
