On 4/7/21 8:02 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Jan Kara wrote:
>
>> On Tue 06-04-21 22:49:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> From: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Opportunity for min().
>>>
>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/minmax.cocci
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8636e3295ce3 ("coccinelle: misc: add minmax script")
>>> CC: Denis Efremov <efremov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx>
>> ...
>>> --- a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c
>>> +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c
>>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static int inotify_add_to_idr(struct idr
>>>
>>> spin_unlock(idr_lock);
>>> idr_preload_end();
>>> - return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
>>> + return min(ret, 0);
>>> }
>>
>> Honestly, while previous expression is a standard idiom for "if 'ret' holds
>> an error, return it", the new expression is harder to understand for me. So
>> I prefer to keep things as they are in this particular case...
>
> OK, I had doubts about it as well, but I forwarded it because I found them
> equally obscure...
>
> Denis, maybe the semantic patch should be updated to avoid this case.
No problem, I'll send an update.
Thanks,
Denis
