On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:16:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:08:19PM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> > Fixed all CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around
> > as reported by checkpatch to adhere to the Linux kernel
> > coding-style guidelines.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexon Oliveira <alexondunkan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > index c7c50406c199..6f08bb21369d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_slave_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,
> > mutex_lock(&slave_image->mtx);
> > if (((slave_image->address_attr & address) == address) &&
> > ((slave_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) &&
> > - (slave_image->locked == 0)) {
> > + slave_image->locked == 0) {
> > slave_image->locked = 1;
> > mutex_unlock(&slave_image->mtx);
> > allocated_image = slave_image;
> > @@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_master_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,
> > if (((master_image->address_attr & address) == address) &&
> > ((master_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) &&
> > ((master_image->width_attr & dwidth) == dwidth) &&
> > - (master_image->locked == 0)) {
> > + master_image->locked == 0) {
> > master_image->locked = 1;
> > spin_unlock(&master_image->lock);
> > allocated_image = master_image;
> > @@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_dma_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 route)
> > /* Find an unlocked and compatible controller */
> > mutex_lock(&dma_ctrlr->mtx);
> > if (((dma_ctrlr->route_attr & route) == route) &&
> > - (dma_ctrlr->locked == 0)) {
> > + dma_ctrlr->locked == 0) {
> > dma_ctrlr->locked = 1;
> > mutex_unlock(&dma_ctrlr->mtx);
> > allocated_ctrlr = dma_ctrlr;
> > @@ -1248,9 +1248,9 @@ void vme_bus_error_handler(struct vme_bridge *bridge,
> > list_for_each(handler_pos, &bridge->vme_error_handlers) {
> > handler = list_entry(handler_pos, struct vme_error_handler,
> > list);
> > - if ((aspace == handler->aspace) &&
> > - (address >= handler->start) &&
> > - (address < handler->end)) {
> > + if (aspace == handler->aspace &&
> > + address >= handler->start &&
> > + address < handler->end) {
> > if (!handler->num_errors)
> > handler->first_error = address;
> > if (handler->num_errors != UINT_MAX)
> > @@ -1337,7 +1337,7 @@ int vme_irq_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - if ((level < 1) || (level > 7)) {
> > + if (level < 1 || level > 7) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "Invalid interrupt level\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > @@ -1386,7 +1386,7 @@ void vme_irq_free(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - if ((level < 1) || (level > 7)) {
> > + if (level < 1 || level > 7) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "Invalid interrupt level\n");
> > return;
> > }
> > @@ -1433,7 +1433,7 @@ int vme_irq_generate(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - if ((level < 1) || (level > 7)) {
> > + if (level < 1 || level > 7) {
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "Invalid interrupt level\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.41.0
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
>
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
>
> - You sent a patch that has been sent multiple times in the past few
> days, and is the same type to ones that has been recently rejected.
> Please always look at the mailing list traffic to determine if you are
> duplicating other people's work.
>
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
>
Hi Greg,
I've read other email threads for other patches where you convey the
idea that this can be a false positive and that you don't see a problem
with using extra parentheses either, and also that this sometimes can
confuse developers.
Did I understand it correctly? If so, should I discard this commit then?
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h's patch email bot
Thank you.
Alexon Oliveira
