Em Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:59:17AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 23:18 +0000, tip-bot for Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > perf probe: Clean up probe_point_lazy_walker() return value > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c > > @@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ static int probe_point_lazy_walker(const char *fname, int lineno, > > * Continue if no error, because the lazy pattern will match > > * to other lines > > */ > > - return ret < 0 ?: 0; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > } > > It is a slight change in semantics though, the return value will now be > negative instead of 1. If its used as a boolean that's fine, but still. > > I'd have changed it to: > > return ret < 0; > > Which is identical to the previous statement. Looks similar to the problem fixed in: fbee632d0ca9f4073a3fefb9a843eac8af036b0f for another function, I bet the intent in both cases was to return ret, i.e. the negative value. - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|