On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:09 AM Liang He <windhl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 2022-09-16 13:38:39, "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:02 AM Liang He <windhl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> At 2022-09-16 07:29:06, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >On 9/14/22 7:23 PM, Liang He wrote:
...
> >> >> static inline bool jailhouse_paravirt(void)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - return of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
> >> >> + struct device_node *np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
> >> >> +
> >> >> + of_node_put(np);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + return np;
> >> >> }
> >> >
> >> >Thank you for the fix, but returning a pointer from a function with a
> >> >bool return type looks odd. Can we also fix that up please?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your review, how about following patch:
> >>
> >> - return of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
> >> + struct device_node *np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "jailhouse,cell");
> >> +
> >> + of_node_put(np);
> >> +
> >> + return (np==NULL);
>
> >This will be opposite to the above. Perhaps you wanted
>
> Sorry, I wanted to use 'np!=NULL'
>
> > return !!np;
> >
> >Also possible (but why?)
> >
> > return np ? true : false;
>
> So, can I chose 'return np?true: false;' as the final patch?
Of course you can, it's up to the maintainer(s) what to accept.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
