On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 05:00:44PM +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > Hi > > On 3 September 2012 16:37, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Silences the following type of sparse warnings: > >> warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsudc.c | 8 ++++---- > >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsudc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsudc.c > >> index 35cdc6a..d8e785d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsudc.c > >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/s3c-hsudc.c > >> @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ static struct usb_request *s3c_hsudc_alloc_request(struct usb_ep *_ep, > >> > >> hsreq = kzalloc(sizeof(*hsreq), gfp_flags); > >> if (!hsreq) > >> - return 0; > >> + return NULL; > > > > shouldn't this be -ENOMEM? > > That should have been the obvious return value. However, I thought > probably it was made so with some reasoning and did not change it as I > am not familiar with this driver. it's just the way the API was designed. If we fail to allocate a usb_request, we must return NULL so function/gadget drivers can check if it was successful or not. Of course it could be changed into ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) or something, but that's an API change... ;-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
