Am 29.07.2012 14:14, schrieb Fengguang Wu:
>>> --- linux.orig/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c 2012-07-29 08:41:09.703759534 +0800
>>> +++ linux/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c 2012-07-29 08:41:14.255759643 +0800
>>> @@ -100,9 +100,7 @@ static struct nf_hook_ops ebt_ops_filter
>>> static int __net_init frame_filter_net_init(struct net *net)
>>> {
>>> net->xt.frame_filter = ebt_register_table(net, &frame_filter);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter))
>>> - return PTR_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return PTR_RET(net->xt.frame_filter);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> i do not understand this,
>> ebt_register_table() return (struct ebt_table *) on success
>>
>> Does PTR_RET really return 0 if this is a propper pointer ?
>
> Right. Here is how PTR_RET defined. This patch does not change any behavior.
>
> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
> {
> if (IS_ERR(ptr))
> return PTR_ERR(ptr);
> else
> return 0;
> }
>
ok, my brain mixed it with PTR_ERR(), leading to the question.
re,
wh
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
