On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:24:30 +1300 Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> Thanks for reviewing.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 2:42 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barry,
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:16:56 +1300 Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > index 9c7cf7347394..8065747fddff 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > @@ -827,6 +827,13 @@ Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block:
> > > do_this(b, c); \
> > > } while (0)
> > >
> > > +Function-like macros should evaluate their parameters, for unused parameters,
> > > +cast them to void:
> > > +
> > > +.. code-block:: c
> > > +
> > > + #define macrofun(a) do { (void) (a); } while (0)
> > > +
> >
> > Maybe add some comment about using a static inline function for these
> > simple versions instead, if at all possible, (it is suggested just
> > above this section) since that will still type check arguments.
>
> right, what about adding the below section together with the above (void) cast?
>
> +Another approach could involve utilizing a static inline function to replace
> +the macro.:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + static inline void fun(struct foo *foo)
> + {
> + }
> +
Stronger than that please. Just tell people not to use macros in such
situations. Always code it in C.
