[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269806370.1500.55.camel@Joe-Laptop.home>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:59:30 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Olimpiu Pascariu <olimpiu.pascariu@...il.com>, apw@...onical.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dwalker@...o99.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Checkpatch.pl false positive? "ERROR: return is not a
function, parentheses are not required"
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 23:09 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:28:13PM +0300, Olimpiu Pascariu wrote:
> > 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.
And as currently implemented, can not.
I think this passes checkpatch without warning:
return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len +
dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers) %
dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers;
It might be better to use a temporary for dt3155_fbuffer[m]
so the code could look more like:
return (p->ready_head - p->ready_len + p->nbuffers) % p->nbuffers;
--
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