On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:34:56PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:24 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:17:14PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 6:39 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:59:15AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: ... > > > > > - if (!desc || IS_ERR(desc) || !desc->gdev || !desc->gdev->chip) > > > > > + if (!desc || IS_ERR(desc)) > > > > > > > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL() > > > > > > Ah, good point. It's a small nit though so I'll fix it when applying > > > barring some major objections for the rest. > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > thinking more about it, shouldn't we return an actual error to the caller which > > is in desc? > > > > if (!desc) > > return -EINVAL; > > if (IS_ERR(desc)) > > return PTR_ERR(desc); > > > > ? > > Hmm... maybe but that's out of the scope of this series. Yeah, but just think about it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko