On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 19:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 23:56 +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote: > > > Unnecessary parentheses should be avoided as reported by checkpatch.pl. > > > Remove unnecessary parentheses, as reported by checkpatch as are nicer > > > to read.For example:- > > > It's often nicer to read if &(foo[0]) is converted to foo like: > > > memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN); > > > memcpy(ap->bssid, ap_info->bssid, ETH_ALEN); > > [] > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c > > [] > > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ int get_ap_information(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, struct ap_info_t *ap_info, > > > memset(ap, 0, sizeof(struct local_ap_t)); > > > > > > /* bssid */ > > > - memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN); > > > + memcpy(&ap->bssid[0], &ap_info->bssid[0], ETH_ALEN); > > > > This code doesn't match the suggested style of > > your commit message. > > Is what is suggested in the commit message correct? That is, is the 0th > element of an array always at the same address as a pointer to the array > itself? I think your wording is a little fuzzy. Assuming you mean not a pointer to the array, but the array itself, yes. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
