On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 15:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 02:51:25PM +0100, Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
> > #define init_h2fwcmd_w_parm_no_rsp(pcmd, pparm, code) \
> > do {\
> > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcmd->list);\
> > - pcmd->cmdcode = code;\
> > - pcmd->parmbuf = (u8 *)(pparm);\
> > - pcmd->cmdsz = sizeof(*pparm);\
> > - pcmd->rsp = NULL;\
> > - pcmd->rspsz = 0;\
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(pcmd)->list);\
> > + (pcmd)->cmdcode = code;\
> > + (pcmd)->parmbuf = (u8 *)((pparm));\
> > + (pcmd)->cmdsz = sizeof(*(pparm));\
> > + (pcmd)->rsp = NULL;\
> > + (pcmd)->rspsz = 0;\
> > } while (0)
>
> Does that change really make any sense? checkpatch is a nice hint,
> sometimes it is not correct...
(Replying again since I mistakenly sent my comments only to Greg...)
Yeah I was over-eager and applied some of checkpatche's patches
without thinking twice... I guess the parenthesis wrapping only makes
sense when you have an operator (either binary or unary). I've
rechecked each macro identified by checkpatch to see if there is a
need for parenthesis wrapping in their current usage.
Regards,
Ricardo Ferreira.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
