Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/61] treewide: Use IS_ERR_OR_NULL over manual NULL check - refactor

From: Kuan-Wei Chiu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 02:40:36 +0800

Hi Philipp,

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote:
> While doing some static code analysis I stumbled over a common pattern,
> where IS_ERR() is combined with a NULL check. For that there is
> IS_ERR_OR_NULL().
> 
> I've written a Coccinelle patch to find and patch those instances.
> The patches follow grouped by subsystem.
> 
> Patches 55-58 may be dropped as they have a (minor?) semantic change:
> They use WARN_ON() or WARN_ON_ONCE(), but only in the IS_ERR() path, not
> for the NULL check. Iff it is okay to print the warning also for NULL,
> then the patches can be applied.
> 
> While generating the patch set `checkpatch` complained about mixing
> [un]likely() with IS_ERR_OR_NULL(), which already uses likely()
> internally. I found and fixed several locations, where that combination
> has been used.

Thanks for the patchset. However, I think we need a explanation for why
switching to IS_ERR_OR_NULL() is an improvement over the existing code.

IMHO, the necessity of IS_ERR_OR_NULL() often highlights a confusing or
flawed API design. It usually implies that the caller is unsure whether
a failure results in an error pointer or a NULL pointer. Rather than
doing a treewide conversion of this pattern, I believe it would be much
more meaningful to review these instances case-by-case and fix the
underlying APIs or caller logic instead.

Additionally, a treewide refactoring like this has the practical
drawback of creating unnecessary merge conflicts when backporting to
stable trees.

Regards,
Kuan-Wei