I think that, in this case, checkpatch.pl contributed:
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '('
#415: FILE: drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c:415:
+ if (c.s.field op (value)) { \
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Agreed - that is why I mentioned the patch is neither right nor useful:)
>
> -daveti
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>> It will work. But my point of saying that was c.s.field ==(value) is
>> again not according to the style.
>>
>> thanks
>> sudip
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> It also works as value is surrounded by (), though I do not think the patch itself is right or useful.
>>>
>>> Dave Tian
>>> dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:55:48PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>>> Fixes checkpatch coding style warning about unneeded space
>>>>> between function name an parentheses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Untested
>>>>> drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>> index 5f9db4c..bbeb0cc 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ struct octeon_hcd {
>>>>> type c; \
>>>>> while (1) { \
>>>>> c.u32 = __cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address); \
>>>>> - if (c.s.field op (value)) { \
>>>>> + if (c.s.field op(value)) { \
>>>>
>>>> have you read the code before modifying it?
>>>> this is not a function.
>>>> have you seen how CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 is being called?
>>>> on every call of CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 op is the operator "=="
>>>> so when called the macro will be c.s.field == (value).
>>>> if your patch is applied then it will become c.s.field ==(value) .. will that be correct ?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> sudip
>>>>
>>>>> result = 0; \
>>>>> break; \
>>>>> } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) { \
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.9.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>>>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
--
Peter
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
