Re: [PATCH] ERR_PTR: warn when ERR_PTR parameter is valid argument

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 1:04 pm

On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:50:19 +0200
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com> wrote:


It would be regrettable to add source-level complexity and runtime cost
to detect this particular bug.  I think it would be better to do this
via static source-code checking if at all possible.

Is there _any_ legitimate use of non-negative EFOO?  There might be
some baroque bits of code which are using non-negative constants in a
non-buggy fashion, but I bet they could be reworked to use negative
constants.

In which case I'd have thought that a script which

a) extracts all the EFOO identifiers from include/*/errno.h and

b) greps the tree for non-negative uses of those

would have 100% coverage?

We might need to touch up some code sites to avoid triggering false
positives and make that script's life a bit easier, but that's fine.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] ERR_PTR: warn when ERR_PTR parameter is valid ..., Andrew Morton, (Tue May 27, 1:04 pm)