On 2021/4/9 17:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 10:22 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2021/4/8 21:09, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:41 PM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> - if (!ptr)
>>>> - return NULL;
>
>>>> + if (!iio_dev)
>>>> + return iio_dev;
>>>
>>> This is correct.
>>> But the preference is usually:
>>> if (!iio_dev)
>>> return NULL;
>>>
>>
>> since it returned iio_dev when failure before, so i just keep as is
>
> Actually Alexandru has a good point. Compare the pieces I left above.
>
a little different from my perspective when I did this.
previously:
- ptr = devres_alloc(devm_iio_device_release, sizeof(*ptr),
- GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!ptr)
- return NULL;
if devres_alloc() failure we return NULL.
iio_dev = iio_device_alloc(parent, sizeof_priv);
- if (iio_dev) {
- *ptr = iio_dev;
- devres_add(parent, ptr);
- } else {
- devres_free(ptr);
- }
return iio_dev;
if iio_device_alloc() failed, we return what it returns.
now we remove devres_alloc() and stay iio_device_alloc(), so I just
keep to return iio_dev.
but actually iio_device_alloc() will return NULL at failure. :)
so return NULL here is definitely correct. i'll change to that if
it's recommended.
thanks,
Yicong
