On Wednesday 31 August 2016 10:03 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Use proper error code instead of using -1 on failure to allocate memory. We may use the error code later in the caller. Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c index 9a332e6..ee53359 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c @@ -249,15 +249,15 @@ static void usb_kbd_close(struct input_dev *dev) static int usb_kbd_alloc_mem(struct usb_device *dev, struct usb_kbd *kbd) { if (!(kbd->irq = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL))) - return -1; + return -ENOMEM;While you are it, the code would look better like this: kbd->irq = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL) if (!kbd->irq) return -ENOMEM;
Yes, it will. But that will become two changes in one patch. I will send a series with this sent patch and another patch to reorder the assignment.
regards sudip -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
