PTR_RET is now PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO

True, it's often used in return statements, but after much bikeshedding
it's probably better to have an explicit name.

(I tried just putting the IS_ERR check inside PTR_ERR itself and gcc
usually generated no more code.  But that clashes current expectations
of how PTR_ERR behaves, so having a separate function is better).

Suggested-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Suggested-by: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This commit is contained in:
Rusty Russell 2013-07-15 11:19:32 +09:30
parent ad81f0545e
commit 6e8b8726ad

View File

@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static inline void * __must_check ERR_CAST(__force const void *ptr)
return (void *) ptr;
}
static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(__force const void *ptr)
static inline int __must_check PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(__force const void *ptr)
{
if (IS_ERR(ptr))
return PTR_ERR(ptr);
@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(__force const void *ptr)
return 0;
}
/* Deprecated */
#define PTR_RET(p) PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(p)
#endif
#endif /* _LINUX_ERR_H */