Fix Duplication of Side Effects for GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) macro
reported by checkpatch
"CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'gdm' - possible side-effects?"
Signed-off-by: Alaa Mohamed <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
index 04df6f9f5403..6f0274470e69 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
@@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
#define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048
-#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
+#define GDM_TTY_READY(_gdm) \
+ ({ typeof(_gdm) (gdm) = (_gdm); \
+ (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count); })
static struct tty_driver *gdm_driver[TTY_MAX_COUNT];
static struct gdm *gdm_table[TTY_MAX_COUNT][GDM_TTY_MINOR];
--
2.35.1
From: Alaa Mohamed
> Sent: 31 March 2022 11:19
>
> Fix Duplication of Side Effects for GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) macro
> reported by checkpatch
> "CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'gdm' - possible side-effects?"
>
> Signed-off-by: Alaa Mohamed <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> index 04df6f9f5403..6f0274470e69 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
>
> #define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048
>
> -#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> +#define GDM_TTY_READY(_gdm) \
> + ({ typeof(_gdm) (gdm) = (_gdm); \
> + (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count); })
Did you test this?
see https://godbolt.org/z/cazPrrzPv
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:18:49PM +0200, Alaa Mohamed wrote:
> Fix Duplication of Side Effects for GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) macro
> reported by checkpatch
> "CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'gdm' - possible side-effects?"
There are no such side-effects here, sorry. Please always evaluate the
code to see what it does, checkpatch sometimes gets it wrong.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:29:04AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alaa Mohamed
> > Sent: 31 March 2022 11:19
> >
> > Fix Duplication of Side Effects for GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) macro
> > reported by checkpatch
> > "CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'gdm' - possible side-effects?"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alaa Mohamed <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > index 04df6f9f5403..6f0274470e69 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > @@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
> >
> > #define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048
> >
> > -#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > +#define GDM_TTY_READY(_gdm) \
> > + ({ typeof(_gdm) (gdm) = (_gdm); \
> > + (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count); })
>
> Did you test this?
>
> see https://godbolt.org/z/cazPrrzPv
>
I don't understand the link. The patch should work as far as I can see.
regards,
dan carpenter
From: Dan Carpenter
> Sent: 31 March 2022 11:40
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:29:04AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Alaa Mohamed
> > > Sent: 31 March 2022 11:19
> > >
> > > Fix Duplication of Side Effects for GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) macro
> > > reported by checkpatch
> > > "CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'gdm' - possible side-effects?"
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alaa Mohamed <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > > index 04df6f9f5403..6f0274470e69 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> > > @@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
> > >
> > > #define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048
> > >
> > > -#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > > +#define GDM_TTY_READY(_gdm) \
> > > + ({ typeof(_gdm) (gdm) = (_gdm); \
> > > + (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count); })
> >
> > Did you test this?
> >
> > see https://godbolt.org/z/cazPrrzPv
> >
>
> I don't understand the link. The patch should work as far as I can see.
If you call GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) the first line ends up as:
struct xxx *gdm = gdm;
which shadows the parameter.
There's probably a warning about an uninitialised variable as well.
The 'gdm' and '_gdm' would need swapping over.
But, as you said, just:
#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) ((gdm) && (gdm)->tty_dev && (gdm)->port.count)
is fine - I'd add the () but not worry about multiple evaluation.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)