On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:49:26PM +0800, Michalis Pappas wrote:
> Hi Dan, thanks for looking at this. From the above snippet I realize
> that I wasn't aware of the strict flag, so significantly less errors
> were produced.
>
> The issues I was referring to as pedantic are:
>
> WARNING: unchecked sscanf return value
> #296: FILE: gdm_wimax.c:296:
> + sscanf(e->dev->name, "wm%d", &idx);
>
> does this really need to be checked?
Just check it. The code as is looks like a information leak (security
vulnerability) until you realize that e->dev->name is probably a known,
trusted string.
>
> ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis
> #34: FILE: usb_ids.h:34:
> +#define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid) \
> + {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)}, \
> + {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}
>
> these macros are only used for brevity in a subsequent array
> declaration, so it seems that the parenthesis are not really needed.
Yeah. You're right. Just ignore this one. Adding parenthis will break
the build.
checkpatch doesn't totally need to be happy.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
