linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement 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: <CAGG-pUSi5z8NbGGx_QFTho9iG+A9a9d5bfDttZQ2vUmv2KOcvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:05:20 -0300
From:	"Geyslan G. Bem" <geyslan@...il.com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros

2015-12-10 9:20 GMT-03:00 Geyslan G. Bem <geyslan@...il.com>:
> 2015-12-10 8:54 GMT-03:00 Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>:
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 12/10/2015 1:32 AM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote:
>>
>>> Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro.
>>>
>>> Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not
>>> use a do {} while (0) loop"
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem <geyslan@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
>>> index cfeebd8..945000a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
>>> @@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd {                   /* one per
>>> controller */
>>>         /* irq statistics */
>>>   #ifdef EHCI_STATS
>>>         struct ehci_stats       stats;
>>> -#      define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0)
>>> +#      define COUNT(x) ((x)++)
>>>   #else
>>> -#      define COUNT(x) do {} while (0)
>>> +#      define COUNT(x) ((void) 0)
>>
>>
>>    Why not just empty #define?
>
> Indeed. I'll change it.
> Tks Sergei.

Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way
is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read
returns.

>
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> MBR, Sergei
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Geyslan G. Bem
> hackingbits.com



-- 
Regards,

Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
--
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/