Hi Andy, I've been looking at the phylib code, and specifically at the use of the ERR_PTR() pattern. I'm personally not a big fan of ERR_PTR() because the compiler cannot type check the result and it runs completely counter to the pattern "if (!ptr)" than is common for testing a pointer return value.
(That being said, I do understand the need for it in certain parts of the kernel (like the filesystem code) where it is important to be both efficient because it is a hot path and still able to accurately return an error code that is used by userspace.) It seems to me that phylib is one of the cases where the users (the network drivers) don't actually care about the specific error code when calling phylib functions. The drivers only seem to care whether or not the function failed, and if it did then bail out. I've also noticed that using the "if (!ptr)" test on phylib return values is a common error for driver writers. In the interest of making driver code easier to write and review, would you be opposed to a set of patches to remove the ERR_PTR() pattern from phylib and its users? g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
