Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <8720b5d432ca5ba5e128c241efee22674e012af8.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: checkpatch: comparisons with a constant on the left
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:23:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20191011015225.GA27495@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20191011015225.GA27495@jagdpanzerIV>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:52 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi Joe,

Hi Sergey.

> I noticed that this code
> 
> 	#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(4, 18, 0)
> 
> triggers checkpatch's warning:
> 
> 	"WARNING: Comparisons should place the constant on
> 		  the right side of the test"
> 
> Both LINUX_VERSION_CODE and KERNEL_VERSION are constants, so
> I'm wondering if it's worth it to improve that check a tiny
> bit.

Probably not.

My preference is for people to ignore checkpatch
message bleats when they don't make overall sense.

checkpatch thinks anything that uses a form like
"name(<args...>)" is a function.

> I'm sure you'll have a better idea.

I suggest reversing the test if it really bothers you.

# if KERNEL_VERSION(4.18.0) < LINUX_VERSION_CODE

but then again just using LINUX_VERSION_CODE emits a
warning message, so it's better to remove whatever is
in the block anyway... <smile>

cheers, Joe