On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0530, shivang upadhyay wrote:
> checkpatch.pl complains about missing parentheses
> "Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses".
> fixed that
>
>
> Signed-off-by: shivang upadhyay <oroz3x@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
>
> /* 11b rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
>
> /* 11g rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_6M (u8)(60 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_12M (u8)(120 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_24M (u8)(240 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_9M (u8)(90 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_18M (u8)(180 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_36M (u8)(360 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_48M (u8)(480 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_54M (u8)(540 / 5)
> +#define TX_RATE_6M ((u8)(60 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_12M ((u8)(120 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_24M ((u8)(240 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_9M ((u8)(90 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_18M ((u8)(180 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_36M ((u8)(360 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_48M ((u8)(480 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_54M ((u8)(540 / 5))
>
> static inline bool is_11b_rate(u8 rate)
> {
> --
> 2.27.0
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what needs to be done
here to properly describe this.
- You sent a patch that has been sent multiple times in the past few
days, and is identical to ones that has been recently rejected.
Please always look at the mailing list traffic to determine if you are
duplicating other people's work.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
