PTR_RET does return. It's perfectly equivalent to using IS_ERR and the returning PTR_ERR. The implementation is here [1]. The reason for using it is this: if you have a function that does something why not call it instead of reproducing it's behavior by explicitly writing what it does.
[1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/err.h#L55 Alexandru Gheorghiu On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Morton <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:57:09 +1030 Rusty Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Alexandru Gheorghiu <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Used PTR_RET function instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR. > > > Patch found using coccinelle. > > > > WTF is PTR_RET? PTR_RET doesn't return anything. Why is it called > > that? It doesn't even make sense. > > > > ZERO_OR_PTR_ERR() maybe. > > > > But what problem are we solving? Insufficient churn in the tree? Code > > being too readable? This isn't some hard-to-get right corner case, or a > > missed optimization. > > > > Andrew, what am I missing here? > > It seemed like a good idea at the time. Merged it two years ago and > have since been keenly awaiting an opportunity to use it. > > It seems that people _have_ been using it, but mainly netfilter people > and we know they're all crazy ;) > >
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
