Hi Dan Carpenter
Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on the suggestion and come back with a fix.
Regards
Selvakumar Elangovan
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:42 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 <selvakumar16197@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
