Alexandru Gheorghiu <gheorghiuandru at gmail.com> writes:
> Used PTR_RET function instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR.
> Patch found using coccinelle.
WTF is PTR_RET? PTR_RET doesn't return anything. Why is it called
that? It doesn't even make sense.
ZERO_OR_PTR_ERR() maybe.
But what problem are we solving? Insufficient churn in the tree? Code
being too readable? This isn't some hard-to-get right corner case, or a
missed optimization.
Andrew, what am I missing here?
Grumpy,
Rusty.
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghiu <gheorghiuandru at gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> index 1ba0d68..d1e664f 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> @@ -567,10 +567,7 @@ static int vm_cmdline_set(const char *device,
> pdev = platform_device_register_resndata(&vm_cmdline_parent,
> "virtio-mmio", vm_cmdline_id++,
> resources, ARRAY_SIZE(resources), NULL, 0);
> - if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> - return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> -
> - return 0;
> + return PTR_RET(pdev);
> }
>
> static int vm_cmdline_get_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
> --
> 1.7.9.5