"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, at 18:16, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> index 30f0765fb9fd..237f4ec2cffd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h
>>> @@ -327,9 +327,9 @@ static inline struct ath9k_htc_tx_ctl *HTC_SKB_CB(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> }
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ATH9K_HTC_DEBUGFS
>>> -#define __STAT_SAFE(hif_dev, expr) ((hif_dev)->htc_handle->drv_priv ? (expr) : 0)
>>> -#define CAB_STAT_INC(priv) ((priv)->debug.tx_stats.cab_queued++)
>>> -#define TX_QSTAT_INC(priv, q) ((priv)->debug.tx_stats.queue_stats[q]++)
>>> +#define __STAT_SAFE(hif_dev, expr) do { ((hif_dev)->htc_handle->drv_priv ? (expr) : 0); } while (0)
>>> +#define CAB_STAT_INC(priv) do { ((priv)->debug.tx_stats.cab_queued++); } while (0)
>>> +#define TX_QSTAT_INC(priv, q) do { ((priv)->debug.tx_stats.queue_stats[q]++); } while (0)
>>
>> Hmm, is it really necessary to wrap these in do/while constructs? AFAICT
>> they're all simple statements already?
>
> It's generally safer to do the same thing on both side of the #ifdef.
>
> The "do { } while (0)" is an empty statement that is needed to fix
> the bug on the #else side. The expressions you have on the #ifdef
> side can be used as values, and wrapping them in do{}while(0)
> turns them into statements (without a value) as well, so fewer
> things can go wrong when you only test one side.
Alright, makes sense; thanks for explaining!
> I suppose the best solution would be to just use inline functions
> for all of them and get rid of the macros.
Let's merge this patch to fix the bug, and if someone wants to follow up
with a conversion to inline functions, that would be awesome, of course :)
-Toke
