Hello, Should I send this patch again due the spelling mistake in the patch description? Thanks, Shalin On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Drokin, Oleg <oleg.drokin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Shalin Mehta wrote: > >> The parentehsis are fixed in the macro for the ldlm lock to set and >> clear the flags. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shalin Mehta <shalinmehta85@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_dlm_flags.h | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_dlm_flags.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_dlm_flags.h >> index 0d3ed87..4f9e9ad 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_dlm_flags.h >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_dlm_flags.h >> @@ -365,10 +365,10 @@ >> #define LDLM_TEST_FLAG(_l, _b) (((_l)->l_flags & (_b)) != 0) >> >> /** set a ldlm_lock flag bit */ >> -#define LDLM_SET_FLAG(_l, _b) (((_l)->l_flags |= (_b)) >> +#define LDLM_SET_FLAG(_l, _b) ((_l)->l_flags |= (_b)) >> >> /** clear a ldlm_lock flag bit */ >> -#define LDLM_CLEAR_FLAG(_l, _b) (((_l)->l_flags &= ~(_b)) >> +#define LDLM_CLEAR_FLAG(_l, _b) ((_l)->l_flags &= ~(_b)) >> >> /** Mask of flags inherited from parent lock when doing intents. */ >> #define LDLM_INHERIT_FLAGS LDLM_FL_INHERIT_MASK > > Acked-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@xxxxxxxxx> > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
