On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:04 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:52:40 +0100, Hugo Mills said: > >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, nick wrote: >> > Thank you for your help, I'll study the code and see what I can do >> > about it. Do you have any suggestions of how to fix this checkpatch >> > warning? >> >> Ignore it. The checker has clearly triggered on a false positive -- >> this is not a function call, and should not be held to that standard. >> (Take a look at where the macro is actually used, to see what's going >> on here). Move on to find something more interesting to fix. > > Am I the only one suspicious of the fact that Nick found one of the > few false positives rather than one of the plentiful actual style > problems? no , you are not the only one. That particular file has lots of checkpatch warning , and our Nick choose just the one which is a false positive. _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
