On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:55:17PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:09:00PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 5 +----
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > index 9c40da5..90cda5b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > @@ -1156,10 +1156,7 @@ static int tegra_pcie_resets_get(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> > return PTR_ERR(pcie->afi_rst);
> >
> > pcie->pcie_xrst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, "pcie_x");
> > - if (IS_ERR(pcie->pcie_xrst))
> > - return PTR_ERR(pcie->pcie_xrst);
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pcie->pcie_xrst);
> > }
>
> I'm not a big fan of this construct because it's a pain to undo this if
> ever we need to add code to this function. But since we do have scripts
> that will flag this, I guess this would pop up every now and again. The
> driver is unlikely to change in this part, too, so:
Thanks for pointing this out. Do you know what the benefit of
PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() is? To me, it makes the following code harder
to read because the error tests are no longer parallel:
...
res->ahb_reset = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "ahb");
if (IS_ERR(res->ahb_reset))
return PTR_ERR(res->ahb_reset);
res->por_reset = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "por");
if (IS_ERR(res->por_reset))
return PTR_ERR(res->por_reset);
res->phy_reset = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "phy");
return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(res->phy_reset);
So I'd be inclined to avoid it unless there's some significant benefit.
Bjorn
