On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:48:07AM +0200, Christoffer Holmstedt wrote:
> Hi
> I've access to a few raspberry pi:s with the openlabs extension board
> and I'm currently configuring my development environment for kernel
> development to help out with the wpan subsystem.
>
> I just ran checkpatch.pl over at86rf230.c and got 109 errors most of
> them concerning macros not enclosed in parentheses. Are these
> false-positives or should I add parantheses?
>
definitely false positiv!
what they do there is parameters for functions in a define.
Like:
#define STATIC_VALUES_PARAMETERS 1, 2, 3
void function(void *p, int first, int second, int third, void *foobar)
{
....
}
and call later;
function(bar, STATIC_VALUES_PARAMETERS, foo);
compiler will replace it with:
function(bar, 1, 2, 3, foo);
and it's wrong to use:
function(bar, (1, 2, 3), foo);
it's not usually kernel programming and historical copy&pasted from
contiki code [0] or maybe contiki copy&pasted it from linux, I don't
know I don't programmed it.
checkpatch warnings about this because it's complicated to use logical
operations define inside another logical operations define. like:
BAR_MASK(FOO_MASK(bar)) - without brackets it's hard to understand
what's going on there.
But this isn't the case here.
btw:
There exists an code styling issue which is not shown by checkpatch.
It's the tab after every define, I have patches for this I will send
them later, it's included for the RFC to add phy capabilities dump.
- Alex
[0] https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/blob/master/cpu/avr/radio/rf230/at86rf230_registermap.h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
