linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: enclose complex define statement

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150421150136.GA6984@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:01:36 +0200
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Jaime Arrocha <jarr@...neldev.net>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: enclose complex define statement

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:21:32PM +0000, Jaime Arrocha wrote:
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:40:15 +0000 Greg KH<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote ---- 
>  > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:11:51PM -0500, Jaime Arrocha wrote: 
>  > > This patch fixes the warning found by checkpatch.pl: 
>  > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses 
>  > >  
>  > > Signed-off-by: Jaime Arrocha <jarr@...neldev.net> 
>  > > --- 
>  > >  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h |    4 ++-- 
>  > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 
>  > >  
>  > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
>  > > index 8ce544d..2b50ac6 100644 
>  > > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
>  > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
>  > > @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ 
>  > >  #define BL_PID_MASK        0xffc0 
>  > >   
>  > >  #define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid)    &#92; 
>  > > -    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},    &#92; 
>  > > -    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)} 
>  > > +    ({USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},    &#92; 
>  > > +    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}) 
>  >  
>  > checkpatch isn't always correct.  This is one such example. 
>  >  
>  > Does this even compile? 
>  > 
> 
> Yes. It did. I compiled the module against 3.2.0-4-amd64 from Debian and 4.0.0 vanilla from kernel.org. One thing that I don't understand is this:
> 
> [jaime@...ylinux staging]$ make -C /lib/modules/3.2.0-4-amd64/build M=$PWD/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ modules
> make: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64'
>   Building modules, stage 2.
>   MODPOST 0 modules

That implies you didn't select the driver to be built in your .config
file.  Are you sure you did that?

> make: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64'
> [jaime@...ylinux staging]$ make -C /lib/modules/4.0.0/build M=$PWD/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ modules
> make: Entering directory `/home/jaime/Pprojects/linux_kernel/linux-4.0'
>   Building modules, stage 2.
>   MODPOST 0 modules
> make: Leaving directory `/home/jaime/Pprojects/linux_kernel/linux-4.0'
> 
> MODPOST 0 modules? I get the same result without making the patch changes. To resolve this I'll test this on another machine.
> 
> I compiled the whole 4.0.0 kernel and got the image with no problems after making the patch changes.

if you touch the file, and do a 'make -j8' does the file rebuild?  If
not, then you didn't select the config option.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/