[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r5vpyv8m.fsf@hariville.hurrynot.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:06:41 +0530
From: Raja R Harinath <harinath@...rynot.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: fix sparse warning
Hi,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:
>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
I know I'm colouring the bike-shed but you can avoid the outer do-while
with:
>> --- wireless-testing.orig/include/linux/kmemcheck.h 2009-07-06 11:41:16.000000000 +0200
>> +++ wireless-testing/include/linux/kmemcheck.h 2009-07-06 11:41:30.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -137,13 +137,13 @@ static inline void kmemcheck_mark_initia
>> int name##_end[0];
>>
>> #define kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield(ptr, name) \
>> - do if (ptr) { \
>> + do { if (ptr) { \
+ if (ptr) {
>> int _n = (long) &((ptr)->name##_end) \
>> - (long) &((ptr)->name##_begin); \
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(_n < 0); \
>> \
>> kmemcheck_mark_initialized(&((ptr)->name##_begin), _n); \
>> - } while (0)
>> + } } while (0)
+ } else
Of course, that tailing 'else' may be much too clever to live. A
slightly less clever but more idiomatic approach would be to use
+ } else do {} while (0)
but what's the point. Oh well, ignore me :-) I'm just pained by the
'} }' due to my wierd sense of aesthetics.
- Hari
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists