From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 20 December 2021 12:13
>
> On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 15:41 +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit 6a953dc4dbd1c7057fb765a24f37a5e953c85fb0 upstream.
> >
> > A new warning in clang points out when macro expansion might result in a
> > GNU C statement expression. There is an instance of this in the mwifiex
> > driver:
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c:217:34: warning: '}' and
> > ')' tokens terminating statement expression appear in different macro
> > expansion contexts [-Wcompound-token-split-by-macro]
> > host_cmd->seq_num = cpu_to_le16(HostCmd_SET_SEQ_NO_BSS_INFO
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h
> []
> > @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ enum mwifiex_channel_flags {
> >
> > #define RF_ANTENNA_AUTO 0xFFFF
> >
> > -#define HostCmd_SET_SEQ_NO_BSS_INFO(seq, num, type) { \
> > - (((seq) & 0x00ff) | \
> > - (((num) & 0x000f) << 8)) | \
> > - (((type) & 0x000f) << 12); }
> > +#define HostCmd_SET_SEQ_NO_BSS_INFO(seq, num, type) \
> > + ((((seq) & 0x00ff) | \
> > + (((num) & 0x000f) << 8)) | \
> > + (((type) & 0x000f) << 12))
>
> Perhaps this would be better as a static inline
>
> static inline u16 HostCmd_SET_SEQ_NO_BSS_INFO(u16 seq, u8 num, u8 type)
> {
> return (type & 0x000f) << 12 | (num & 0x000f) << 8 | (seq & 0x00ff);
> }
Just writing in on one line helps readability!
It is also used exactly twice, both with a cpu_to_le16().
I wonder how well the compiler handles that on BE?
The #define is more likely to be handled better.
I've only made a cursory glance at the code, but I get splitting
host_cmd->seq_num into two u8 fields would give better code!
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
