Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 15:42:30 +0200
From:   Nam Cao <namcaov@gmail.com>
To:     Brent Pappas <pappasbrent@knights.ucf.edu>
Cc:     "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "cai.huoqing@linux.dev" <cai.huoqing@linux.dev>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: most: net: Replace macros HB and LB with static
 inline functions
Message-ID: <20221006134230.GA14040@nam-dell>
References: <BN7PR07MB419563C5B405ED4082D7841DF65D9@BN7PR07MB4195.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <20221005235728.GA118549@nam-dell>
 <Yz7WVCzAviUYstX9@knights.ucf.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yz7WVCzAviUYstX9@knights.ucf.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:21:24AM -0400, Brent Pappas wrote:
> The 10/05/2022 19:57, Nam Cao wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:10:44PM +0000, Brent Pappas wrote:
> > > Replace function-like macros "HB" and "LB" with static inline functions
> > > to comply with preferred Linux coding style standards.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Brent Pappas <pappasbrent@knights.ucf.edu>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c b/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> > > index 1d1fe8bff7ee..8a8fbc274b73 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> > > @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@
> > >  #define PMS_TELID_MASK         0x0F
> > >  #define PMS_TELID_SHIFT                4
> > >  
> > > -#define HB(value)              ((u8)((u16)(value) >> 8))
> > > -#define LB(value)              ((u8)(value))
> > > +static inline u8 HB(unsigned int value)                { return ((u8)((u16)(value) >> 8)); }
> > > +static inline u8 LB(unsigned int value)                { return ((u8)(value)); }
> > >  
> > >  #define EXTRACT_BIT_SET(bitset_name, value) \
> > >         (((value) >> bitset_name##_SHIFT) & bitset_name##_MASK)
> > 
> > I cannot apply your patch. I think your email client modified some
> > whitespace characters.
> > 
> > Check this for more information:
> > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kernel.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fv4.10%2Fprocess%2Femail-clients.html&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cpappasbrent%40knights.ucf.edu%7C3748a695ff1e438ecd0b08daa72d66bf%7C5b16e18278b3412c919668342689eeb7%7C0%7C0%7C638006110693613730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=rq2pgVr1dqT2k9hC21LXueqMeIcVyk2Qjvjl1KtkhsU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Nam
> 
> I have followed your advice Nam and am now using an email cient that
> leaves whitespace intact.
> 
> Should I reply to this post with the corrected diff, or would it
> be better to submit a new patch with it?

It's up to you. Replying sometimes make the conversation messy, but for
this case I think it's fine. Don't forget to add "PATCH v2" prefix and a
change log.

Best regards,
Nam