On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 13:53 -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 5/14/21 10:56 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 17:30 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:42:16PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote: > > [] > > > > I didn't look at how/where was the macro called and missed a very > > > > obvious error. Now that I have looked at it, the only way I can think of > > > > fixing this is changing the macro to a (inline?) function. Will > > > > that be a desirable change? > > > > > > No, it can't be a function, the code is fine as-is, checkpatch is just a > > > perl script and does not always know what needs to be done. > > > > true. > > > > perhaps better though to rename these declaring macros to start with declare_ > > I don't disagree with your suggestion, but it's not clear it > would have prevented submission of the erroneous initial patch > (nor future ones from people who blindly follow checkpatch.pl > suggestions). With my checkpatch maintainer hat on: Yeah Alex, I know. checkpatch can't teach people c either. There's not much to do other than try to make the code clearer. Adding exceptions to checkpatch only leads to other exceptions and false negatives... > PS Lots of negatives in that sentence. Only positives... cheers, Joe
