Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_core: Use ERR_PTR instead of NULL

[Khalid Masum]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:04 AM Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Khalid,
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 11:34 AM Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 10:17 PM Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Khalid,
> > >
> > > Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@xxxxxxxxx> says:
> > > > Failure of kzalloc to allocate memory is not reported. Return Error
> > > > pointer to ENOMEM if memory allocation fails. This will increase
> > > > readability and will make the function easier to use in future.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > index a0f99baafd35..ea50767e02bf 100644
> > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > > > @@ -2419,7 +2419,7 @@ struct hci_dev *hci_alloc_dev_priv(int sizeof_priv)
> > > >
> > > >       hdev = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >       if (!hdev)
> > > > -             return NULL;
> > > > +             return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > >
> > >
> > > This will break all callers of hci_alloc_dev(). All callers expect NULL
> > > in case of an error, so you will leave them with wrong pointer.
> >
> > You are right. All callers of hci_alloc_dev() need to be able to handle
> > the error pointer. I shall send a V2 with all the callers of hci_alloc_dev
> > handling the ERR_PTR.
> >
> > > Also, allocation functionS return an error only in case of ENOMEM, so
> > > initial code is fine, IMO
> > >
>
> If there just a single error like ENOMEM then Id say this is fine,
> just as it is fine for kzalloc.
>
> > I think it makes the memory allocation error handling look to be a bit
> > different from what we usually do while allocating memory which is,
> > returning an error or an error pointer. Here we are returning a NULL
> > without any context, making it a bit unreadable. So I think returning
> > an error pointer is better. If I am not mistaken, this also complies with
> > the return convention:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/kernel-hacking/convention-returns.html
>
> Not sure if that would apply to code that is basically a wrapper of kzalloc.

I got you.
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Pavel Skripkin
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   -- Khalid Masum
>
>
>
> --
> Luiz Augusto von Dentz

Thanks,
  -- Khalid Masum