You're not asking the right questions.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> u_module in device.h
>
Is "u_var" a good name? What does the "u_" even mean?
> This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
>
> Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
> struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
> };
>
> -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) { \
> - if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1)) \
> - (uVar) = 0; \
> +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) { \
> + if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1)) \
The \ is not aligned any more.
> + (u_var) = 0; \
> else \
> - (uVar)++; \
> + (u_var)++; \
> }
This macro is rubbish. How does the wrap around even make sense?
I hope that if you review the code a bit I think you will find that the
wrap around is impossible? Just fix the two callers and delete this
macro.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
