Re: [PATCH 02/61] btrfs: Prefer IS_ERR_OR_NULL over manual NULL check
David Sterba <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.dm-devel,dev.linux.lists.gfs2,dev.linux.lists.iommu,dev.linux.lists.sched-ext,dev.linux.lists.v9fs,fr.inria.cocci,org.freedesktop.lists.amd-gfx,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.infradead.lists.linux-phy,org.infradead.lists.linux-rockchip,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-bluetooth,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-clk,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-hyperv,org.kernel.vger.linux-input,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-leds,org.kernel.vger.linux-media,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-modules,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-omap,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.kernel.vger.linux-sctp,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.linux-sh,org.kernel.vger.linux-sound,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-usb,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.target-devel,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.osuosl.intel-wired-lan,org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 12:48:28PM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Prefer using IS_ERR_OR_NULL() over using IS_ERR() and a manual NULL > check. > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL() already uses likely(!ptr) internally. checkpatch does > not like nesting it: > > WARNING: nested (un)?likely() calls, IS_ERR_OR_NULL already uses > > unlikely() internally > Remove the explicit use of likely(). > > Change generated with coccinelle. > > To: Chris Mason <[email protected]> > To: David Sterba <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Signed-off-by: Philipp Hahn <[email protected]> Added to for-next, we seem to be using IS_ERR_OR_NULL() already in a few other places so this is makes sense for consistency. Thanks.