On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 04:37:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:55:56PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 07:05:10AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Ben Widawsky
> >> > <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > ctx = i915_gem_context_get(file->driver_priv, args->ctx_id);
> >> > > - if (IS_ERR(ctx)) {
> >> > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ctx)) {
> >> >
> >> > We now have half the callers check for IS_ERR and the others not.
> >> > Afaics i915_gem_context_get can only return NULL or a real context
> >> > though. Also from a quite read the expected error for a lookup failure
> >> > is ENOENT (and there seems to be a testcase for this).
> >> > -Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >> To your first point:
> >> I think checking null is always the right thing currently, but for
> >> future proofing, IS_ERR_OR_NULL is really the right thing. After his
> >> patch, I believe only i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl is still incorrect.
> >
> > Using IS_ERR_OR_NULL on a return value which can never contain an
> > encoded errno value is imo confusing, more so when it's inconsitently
> > applied.
>
> Moreover, the error path then goes on to return 0 for success when the
> pointer is NULL.
>
That was mentioned in the commit message.
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
