On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:28:47PM -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to
>> me that PTR_RET() is defined as ...
>>
>> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
>> {
>> if (IS_ERR(ptr))
>> return PTR_ERR(ptr);
>> else
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is
>> wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed?
>
> No - I misread it as PTR_ERR not PTR_RET. Your patch is fine.
Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
