On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:44:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0300, Alexey Tulia wrote:
> > This fixes the following warning:
> > - WARNING: __constant_cpu_to_le32 should be cpu_to_le32
>
> What produces this warning?
>
This warning was found by checkpatch.pl -f
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Tulia <alexey.tulia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > index 0007d30..e21c1b4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static int vhci_hub_control(struct usb_hcd *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue,
> > break;
> > case GetHubStatus:
> > usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(" GetHubStatus\n");
> > - *(__le32 *) buf = __constant_cpu_to_le32(0);
> > + *(__le32 *) buf = cpu_to_le32(0);
>
> How is this correct? Why shouldn't __constant_cpu_to_le32() be used
> here? Heck, why can't we just use 0 given that it doesn't matter the
> endianness of that specific value :)
It may be so, but anyway the __constant_cpu_to_le32 produced a warning
and it was obvious to clean up this part of code a bit.
However, the 0 value possibly can change to other value in future and
this macro acts as a safety net here.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
