[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100328200922.GB27351@core2>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:09:22 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Olimpiu Pascariu <olimpiu.pascariu@...il.com>
Cc: apw@...onical.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dwalker@...o99.com,
joe@...ches.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Checkpatch.pl false positive? "ERROR: return is not a
function, parentheses are not required"
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:28:13PM +0300, Olimpiu Pascariu wrote:
> I've used checkpatch.pl to verify drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c,
> in order to provide a patch which fixes the errors and warnings found by
> checkpatch.
> The script returns the following error:
> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> #155: FILE: staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c:155:
> + return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
>
> The original code is:
>
> return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
> dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len +
> dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)%
> (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers);
>
> I've deleted the the first open parenthesis and the last close
> parenthesis, and now the code looks like this:
>
> return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
> dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len +
> dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)%
> (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers);
>
> IMHO the code is correct, though an auxiliary variable could be used to
> avoid this error returned by checkpatch.pl.
Yes, checkpatch.pl doesn't understand C.
--
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