On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> >> -#define FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(func, retval) do { \ > > >> - if ((func) == NULL) { \ > > >> - DEBUGOUT("%s:%d function not supported\n", \ > > >> - __func__, __LINE__); \ > > >> - return (retval); \ > > >> - } \ > > >> +#define FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(func, retval) do { \ > > >> + if ((func) == NULL) { \ > > >> + PMD_DRV_LOG("%s:%d function not supported", \ > > >> + __func__, __LINE__); \ > > >> + return retval; \ > > >> > > > Need to keep the parens around retval in your macro > > > > Actually, checkpatch complained about this. > > So I can keep the parenthesis, but then I don't want Thomas to tell me my > > patch does not pass checkpatch :-) > > You're right, I care about checkpatch :) > I don't see a case where parens are needed with return. Please give an > example. Looking at it again, in this specific case you are correct. It is good hygiene to always use parens around macro arguments, but this specific case is ok without. It does add a small bit of danger if retval ends up getting used elsewhere in the macro, but that's about it. Probably not worth redoing the patch over that. Jay