On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:26:20PM +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
>> Macro argument 'a' may be better as '(a)' to avoid precedence issues as
>> reported by checkpatch.pl
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c b/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
>> index 41a49c8194e5..bdfc0a8c7af3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
>> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ struct fwtty_transaction {
>> };
>> };
>>
>> -#define to_device(a, b) (a->b)
>> +#define to_device((a), b) (a->b)
>
> Really?
Actually compiling files should be a requirement for submitting patches,
cfr. the response from kbuild test report.
The parentheses should be added to the second "a" instead ;-)
> Why do we even have this macro at all? Can it just be removed?
Definitely. Would be much easier to read.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
