Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
@@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
#define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
/* 11b rate */
-#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
/* 11g rate */
-#define TX_RATE_6M (u8)(60 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_12M (u8)(120 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_24M (u8)(240 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
-#define TX_RATE_9M (u8)(90 / 5)
-#define TX_RATE_18M (u8)(180 / 5)
-#define TX_RATE_36M (u8)(360 / 5)
-#define TX_RATE_48M (u8)(480 / 5)
-#define TX_RATE_54M (u8)(540 / 5)
+#define TX_RATE_6M ((u8)(60 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_12M ((u8)(120 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_24M ((u8)(240 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
+#define TX_RATE_9M ((u8)(90 / 5))
+#define TX_RATE_18M ((u8)(180 / 5))
+#define TX_RATE_36M ((u8)(360 / 5))
+#define TX_RATE_48M ((u8)(480 / 5))
+#define TX_RATE_54M ((u8)(540 / 5))
static inline bool is_11b_rate(u8 rate)
{
--
2.20.1
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
>
> /* 11b rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
right?
Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
something that needs to be "fixed"?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> > Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> > #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
> >
> > /* 11b rate */
> > -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
>
> But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
> right?
>
> Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
> what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
> something that needs to be "fixed"?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply.
Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
Task is to find and fix a coding style in linux-next/drivers/staging.
I've checked many files with checkpatch.pl but they are almost fine :)
I found this one and prepared a patch for it.
Thanks in advance for your comments and advice.
Thanks,
Fatih
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:57:04PM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > > Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> > > #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
> > >
> > > /* 11b rate */
> > > -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> >
> > But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
> > right?
> >
> > Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
> > what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
> > something that needs to be "fixed"?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
First rule of that challenge is that you are not allowed to talk about
it in public :)
That being said, you didn't answer any of my questions above :(
greg k-h
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:57:04PM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > > > Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > > Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> > > > #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
> > > >
> > > > /* 11b rate */
> > > > -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > >
> > > But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
> > > what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
> > > something that needs to be "fixed"?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> > Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
>
> First rule of that challenge is that you are not allowed to talk about
> it in public :)
>
> That being said, you didn't answer any of my questions above :(
>
> greg k-h
Ohh no, missed the rule. Sorry for that, I feel rookie :)
You are right, they are not complex macros.
Besides that, type cast operator doesn't have the highest precedence.
So, I think we can use enclosing paranthesis.
Thanks,
Fatih
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:23:24PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:57:04PM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > > > > Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > > > Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> > > > > #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
> > > > >
> > > > > /* 11b rate */
> > > > > -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > >
> > > > But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
> > > > what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
> > > > something that needs to be "fixed"?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> > > Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
> >
> > First rule of that challenge is that you are not allowed to talk about
> > it in public :)
> >
> > That being said, you didn't answer any of my questions above :(
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Ohh no, missed the rule. Sorry for that, I feel rookie :)
> You are right, they are not complex macros.
> Besides that, type cast operator doesn't have the highest precedence.
> So, I think we can use enclosing paranthesis.
I don't think they are needed, see how these are used please.
thanks,
greg k-h
Ok, thanks!
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:52 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:23:24PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:57:04PM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> > > > > > Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > > > > Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <[email protected]>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > > index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> > > > > > @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> > > > > > #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* 11b rate */
> > > > > > -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > > > +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> > > > >
> > > > > But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
> > > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
> > > > > what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
> > > > > something that needs to be "fixed"?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your reply.
> > > > Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
> > >
> > > First rule of that challenge is that you are not allowed to talk about
> > > it in public :)
> > >
> > > That being said, you didn't answer any of my questions above :(
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > Ohh no, missed the rule. Sorry for that, I feel rookie :)
> > You are right, they are not complex macros.
> > Besides that, type cast operator doesn't have the highest precedence.
> > So, I think we can use enclosing paranthesis.
>
> I don't think they are needed, see how these are used please.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h