Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200614135125.19502-1-rikajff@gmail.com> <20200614140531.GA2661398@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200614140531.GA2661398@kroah.com>
From:   Ricardo Ferreira <rikajff@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:28:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CACtES-qmpRJ2mk+1vhsJm55G6j6U1+rLB1t2izHwJ1u4_eUKHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: Addressed checkpatch.pl issues related
 to macro parameter wrapping in parentheses.
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Florian Schilhabel <florian.c.schilhabel@googlemail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@gmail.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 15:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 02:51:25PM +0100, Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
> >  #define init_h2fwcmd_w_parm_no_rsp(pcmd, pparm, code) \
> >  do {\
> > -     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcmd->list);\
> > -     pcmd->cmdcode = code;\
> > -     pcmd->parmbuf = (u8 *)(pparm);\
> > -     pcmd->cmdsz = sizeof(*pparm);\
> > -     pcmd->rsp = NULL;\
> > -     pcmd->rspsz = 0;\
> > +     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(pcmd)->list);\
> > +     (pcmd)->cmdcode = code;\
> > +     (pcmd)->parmbuf = (u8 *)((pparm));\
> > +     (pcmd)->cmdsz = sizeof(*(pparm));\
> > +     (pcmd)->rsp = NULL;\
> > +     (pcmd)->rspsz = 0;\
> >  } while (0)
>
> Does that change really make any sense?  checkpatch is a nice hint,
> sometimes it is not correct...

(Replying again since I mistakenly sent my comments only to Greg...)

Yeah I was over-eager and applied some of checkpatche's patches
without thinking twice... I guess the parenthesis wrapping only makes
sense when you have an operator (either binary or unary). I've
rechecked each macro identified by checkpatch to see if there is a
need for parenthesis wrapping in their current usage.

Regards,
Ricardo Ferreira.