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: <20210219095835.9687-1-selvakumar16197@gmail.com> <20210219121219.GZ2087@kadam>
In-Reply-To: <20210219121219.GZ2087@kadam>
From:   Selvakumar E <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:50:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CAD=cR89QCJ_6a20Pn9f2V6Zc5dTx86MbdwyrokjHbg70KmC1qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     forest@alittletooquiet.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        tvboxspy@gmail.com, oscar.carter@gmx.com,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dan Carpenter

Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on the suggestion and come back with a fix.

Regards
Selvakumar Elangovan

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:42 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> You're not asking the right questions.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> > This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> > u_module in device.h
> >
>
> Is "u_var" a good name?  What does the "u_" even mean?
>
> > This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
> >       struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
> >  };
> >
> > -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {    \
> > -     if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))                  \
> > -             (uVar) = 0;                             \
> > +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {  \
> > +     if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1))                        \
>
> The \ is not aligned any more.
>
> > +             (u_var) = 0;                            \
> >       else                                            \
> > -             (uVar)++;                               \
> > +             (u_var)++;                              \
> >  }
>
>
> This macro is rubbish.  How does the wrap around even make sense?
> I hope that if you review the code a bit I think you will find that the
> wrap around is impossible?  Just fix the two callers and delete this
> macro.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>