Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Based on Joe's suggestion, I'm planning to change the macro like below.
>> Are you ok with that?
>>
>> It actually adds a new checkpatch warning but I'm going to ignore that
>> for now:
>>
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h:177: ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h
>> index 109ea684f88f..e70836586756 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h
>> @@ -174,46 +174,48 @@ enum wmi_main_service {
>>
>> static inline char *wmi_service_name(int service_id)
>> {
>> -#define SVCSTR(x) { case x: return #x; }
>> +#define SVCSTR(x) case x: return #x
>> +
> [...]
>
> This was the checkpatch warning I originally fixed by using { .. } :-)
Hehe, I was actually thinking maybe that's why you added the braces :)
> Anyway, I don't see a problem with the macro change you suggest.
> Apparently we're doomed to have a checkpatch warning either way unless
> we don't use a macro at all.
Yeah. And it's not like that we need to have 0 checkpatch warnings. For
example, I already have a long list of errors I ignore:
MSLEEP,USLEEP_RANGE,PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL,NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE,LINUX_VERSION_CODE,COMPLEX_MACRO
checkpatch just a good tool to catch some of the style issues and makes
my work easier, especially when newbies send patches.
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
