[PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop" Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem --- drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ /* irq statistics */ #ifdef EHCI_STATS struct ehci_stats stats; -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) #endif /* debug files */ -- 2.6.3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 07:32:33PM -0300, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: > Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. > > Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not > use a do {} while (0) loop" > > Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem As with previous, missing the changelog, but other than that the patch looks good to me. Acked-by: Peter Senna Tschudin > --- > drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ > /* irq statistics */ > #ifdef EHCI_STATS > struct ehci_stats stats; > -#define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) > +#define COUNT(x) ((x)++) > #else > -#define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) > +#define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) > #endif > > /* debug files */ > -- > 2.6.3 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
Hello. On 12/10/2015 1:32 AM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop" Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem --- drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ /* irq statistics */ #ifdef EHCI_STATS struct ehci_stats stats; -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? [...] MBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
2015-12-10 8:54 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov : > Hello. > > On 12/10/2015 1:32 AM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: > >> Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. >> >> Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not >> use a do {} while (0) loop" >> >> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem >> --- >> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >> index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >> @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per >> controller */ >> /* irq statistics */ >> #ifdef EHCI_STATS >> struct ehci_stats stats; >> -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) >> +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) >> #else >> -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) >> +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) > > >Why not just empty #define? Indeed. I'll change it. Tks Sergei. > > [...] > > MBR, Sergei > -- Regards, Geyslan G. Bem hackingbits.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
2015-12-10 9:20 GMT-03:00 Geyslan G. Bem : > 2015-12-10 8:54 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov > : >> Hello. >> >> On 12/10/2015 1:32 AM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: >> >>> Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. >>> >>> Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not >>> use a do {} while (0) loop" >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem >>> --- >>> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per >>> controller */ >>> /* irq statistics */ >>> #ifdef EHCI_STATS >>> struct ehci_stats stats; >>> -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) >>> +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) >>> #else >>> -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) >>> +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) >> >> >>Why not just empty #define? > > Indeed. I'll change it. > Tks Sergei. Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read returns. > > >> >> [...] >> >> MBR, Sergei >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Geyslan G. Bem > hackingbits.com -- Regards, Geyslan G. Bem hackingbits.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
On 12/10/2015 04:05 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop" Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem --- drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ /* irq statistics */ #ifdef EHCI_STATS struct ehci_stats stats; -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? Indeed. I'll change it. Tks Sergei. Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read returns. Just 0, no parens please. MBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
2015-12-10 11:44 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov : > On 12/10/2015 04:05 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: > > Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. > > Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not > use a do {} while (0) loop" > > Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem > --- >drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- >1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per > controller */ > /* irq statistics */ >#ifdef EHCI_STATS > struct ehci_stats stats; > -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) > +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) >#else > -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) > +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? >>> >>> >>> Indeed. I'll change it. >>> Tks Sergei. >> >> >> Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way >> is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read >> returns. > > >Just 0, no parens please. Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation. Then my change is: -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) (++(x)) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) 0 Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x. > > MBR, Sergei > -- Regards, Geyslan G. Bem hackingbits.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
On 12/10/2015 05:56 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop" Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem --- drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ /* irq statistics */ #ifdef EHCI_STATS struct ehci_stats stats; -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? Indeed. I'll change it. Tks Sergei. Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read returns. Just 0, no parens please. Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation. It's because the literals don't need parens at all. Then my change is: -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) (++(x)) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) 0 Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x. Why if there was a post-increment before? Anyway, this talk is quite pointless since the macro didn't return any value anyway. MBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
2015-12-10 14:26 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov : > On 12/10/2015 05:56 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: > >>> Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. >>> >>> Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not >>> use a do {} while (0) loop" >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem >>> --- >>> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h >>> @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per >>> controller */ >>> /* irq statistics */ >>> #ifdef EHCI_STATS >>> struct ehci_stats stats; >>> -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) >>> +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) >>> #else >>> -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) >>> +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) >> >> >> >> >> Why not just empty #define? > > > > Indeed. I'll change it. > Tks Sergei. Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read returns. > > >>> Just 0, no parens please. > > >> Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation. > > >It's because the literals don't need parens at all. > >> Then my change is: >> >> -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) >> +# define COUNT(x) (++(x)) >> #else >> -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) >> +# define COUNT(x) 0 >> >> Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x. > > >Why if there was a post-increment before? There's nothing wrong with post-increment. The pre one would be necessary if using return. > >Anyway, this talk is quite pointless since the macro didn't return any > value anyway. You're sure, there's no use anywhere of the return of that macro indeed. Sending v2 soon. > > MBR, Sergei > -- Regards, Geyslan G. Bem hackingbits.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
On 12/10/2015 08:40 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro. Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop" Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem --- drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per controller */ /* irq statistics */ #ifdef EHCI_STATS struct ehci_stats stats; -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? Indeed. I'll change it. Tks Sergei. Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read returns. Just 0, no parens please. Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation. It's because the literals don't need parens at all. Then my change is: -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) (++(x)) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) 0 Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x. Why if there was a post-increment before? There's nothing wrong with post-increment. The pre one would be necessary if using return. Maybe it was intended to return the old value? :-) Anyway, this talk is quite pointless since the macro didn't return any value anyway. You're sure, there's no use anywhere of the return of that macro indeed. *do* {} *while* (0) just couldn't return any value, it's not just a compound statement which gcc indeed allows to be evaluated. Sending v2 soon. MBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros
2015-12-10 14:47 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov : > On 12/10/2015 08:40 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote: > > Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement > macro. > > Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not > use a do {} while (0) loop" > > Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem > --- > drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > index cfeebd8..945000a 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h > @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per > controller */ >/* irq statistics */ > #ifdef EHCI_STATS >struct ehci_stats stats; > -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) > +# define COUNT(x) ((x)++) > #else > -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) > +# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0) Why not just empty #define? >>> >>> >>> Indeed. I'll change it. >>> Tks Sergei. >> >> >> Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way >> is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read >> returns. >>> >>> > Just 0, no parens please. >>> >>> Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation. >>> >>> >>> It's because the literals don't need parens at all. >>> Then my change is: -# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0) +# define COUNT(x) (++(x)) #else -# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0) +# define COUNT(x) 0 Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why if there was a post-increment before? > > >> There's nothing wrong with post-increment. The pre one would be >> necessary if using return. > > >Maybe it was intended to return the old value? :-) > >>> >>> Anyway, this talk is quite pointless since the macro didn't return >>> any >>> value anyway. >> >> You're sure, there's no use anywhere of the return of that macro indeed. > > >*do* {} *while* (0) just couldn't return any value, it's not just a > compound statement which gcc indeed allows to be evaluated. Indeed. :-) v2 in the oven. > > >> Sending v2 soon. > > > MBR, Sergei > -- Regards, Geyslan G. Bem hackingbits.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html