| Message ID | 20211207073116.3856-1-guozhengkui@vivo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: gro: use IS_ERR before PTR_ERR | expand |
From: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:31:09 +0800 Hi, thanks for your patch. > fix following cocci warning: > ./net/core/gro.c:493:5-12: ERROR: PTR_ERR applied after initialization to constant on line 441 > > Signed-off-by: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> > --- > net/core/gro.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/gro.c b/net/core/gro.c > index 8ec8b44596da..ee08f7b23793 100644 > --- a/net/core/gro.c > +++ b/net/core/gro.c > @@ -490,9 +490,11 @@ static enum gro_result dev_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct sk_buff > if (&ptype->list == head) > goto normal; > > - if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { > - ret = GRO_CONSUMED; > - goto ok; > + if (IS_ERR(pp)) { > + if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { > + ret = GRO_CONSUMED; > + goto ok; > + } > } `if (PTR_ERR(ptr) == -ERRNO)` itself is correct without a check for IS_ERR(). The former basically is a more precise test comparing to the latter. Not sure if compilers can get it well, but in ideal case the first will be omitted from the object code at all, and so do we. In case I'm wrong and this is a correct fix, it at least shouldn't increase the indentation by one, these two conditions can be placed into one `if` statement. NAK. > > same_flow = NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->same_flow; > -- > 2.20.1 Al
On 2021/12/7 22:41, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > From: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:31:09 +0800 > > Hi, thanks for your patch. > >> fix following cocci warning: >> ./net/core/gro.c:493:5-12: ERROR: PTR_ERR applied after initialization to constant on line 441 >> >> Signed-off-by: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> >> --- >> net/core/gro.c | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/core/gro.c b/net/core/gro.c >> index 8ec8b44596da..ee08f7b23793 100644 >> --- a/net/core/gro.c >> +++ b/net/core/gro.c >> @@ -490,9 +490,11 @@ static enum gro_result dev_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct sk_buff >> if (&ptype->list == head) >> goto normal; >> >> - if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { >> - ret = GRO_CONSUMED; >> - goto ok; >> + if (IS_ERR(pp)) { >> + if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { >> + ret = GRO_CONSUMED; >> + goto ok; >> + } >> } > > `if (PTR_ERR(ptr) == -ERRNO)` itself is correct without a check for > IS_ERR(). The former basically is a more precise test comparing to > the latter. Yes, even without `IS_ERR`, it runs well. At least, `IS_ERR` before `PTR_ERR` is a good habit. :) Zhengkui > Not sure if compilers can get it well, but in ideal case the first > will be omitted from the object code at all, and so do we. > > In case I'm wrong and this is a correct fix, it at least shouldn't > increase the indentation by one, these two conditions can be placed > into one `if` statement. > > NAK. > >> >> same_flow = NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->same_flow; >> -- >> 2.20.1 > > Al >
diff --git a/net/core/gro.c b/net/core/gro.c index 8ec8b44596da..ee08f7b23793 100644 --- a/net/core/gro.c +++ b/net/core/gro.c @@ -490,9 +490,11 @@ static enum gro_result dev_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct sk_buff if (&ptype->list == head) goto normal; - if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { - ret = GRO_CONSUMED; - goto ok; + if (IS_ERR(pp)) { + if (PTR_ERR(pp) == -EINPROGRESS) { + ret = GRO_CONSUMED; + goto ok; + } } same_flow = NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->same_flow;
fix following cocci warning: ./net/core/gro.c:493:5-12: ERROR: PTR_ERR applied after initialization to constant on line 441 Signed-off-by: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> --- net/core/gro.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)