I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a worthwhile approach. If you created a tool to automatically re-write macros as functions, that's super impressive. But the choice between using a macro and a function is just a style debate. The note in Coding Style is more talking about complicated macros instead of these simple ones. And anyway, when it comes to gray areas in the style guidelines, we generally defer to the original author because that's who is doing all the work. There are some sorts of bugs associated with using macros like Macro Expansion Precedence Bugs where there isn't parentheses around a macro, or Double Evaluation Bugs where a parameter is evaluated twice. But these sorts of bugs are very rare in the Linux kernel. Generally kernel programmers have always been good about this sort of stuff. Also checkpatch insists on parentheses. And it's not like error paths where the bugs are difficult to find in testing. Probably we get a macro bug every three years (compared to uninitialized variable bugs where we get several per week). I have a Smatch check for both of these kinds of macro bugs. Another kind of bug would be type related bugs, because macros don't have type checking. But I think those are caught in testing so they're extremely rare. I don't think I have seen a real life example of one of those. regards, dan carpenter
