linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] silicom: checkpatch: errors caused by macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1371503023.2213.9.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:03:43 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Lorenz Haspel <lorenz@...gers.com>, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, puff65537@...sheeslibrary.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, michael.banken@...he.stud.uni-erlangen.de,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] silicom: checkpatch: errors caused by macros

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 23:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:42:12PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:20 +0200, Lorenz Haspel wrote:
> > > fixed checkpatch error:
> > > added parenthesis around complex macro.
> > > 
> > > Macro with return was only used once in the code,
> > > so I expandet it in-place.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > []
> > > -#define lock_bpctl()					\
> > > -if (down_interruptible(&bpctl_sema)) {			\
> > > -	return -ERESTARTSYS;				\
> > > -}							\
> > > -
> > >  #define unlock_bpctl()					\
> > >  	up(&bpctl_sema);
> > 
> > Symmetry please.
> > 
> > Most likely, this unlock_bpctl macro is only used once too.
> > I suggest removing it as well.
> > 
> 
> Joe is right, of course, but this could be fixed in a later patch.

Generally I think it's better that new submitters patches
should go through more strict reviews and be as correct
as possible.  I think this is especially true for patches
that are just checkpatch driven.

--
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/