[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGwOe2YfAKsifsjXr9fydMfVV+Obv-1mBebXwXAWrNHSNJt+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:46:36 +0200
From: Fernando ApesteguĂa
<fernando.apesteguia@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: replace DGNC_VERIFY_BOARD macro
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:22:57PM +0200, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
>> The patch replaces the macro with a function (dgnc_get_board) and
>> substitutes the macro statement with a call to that function and a
>> comparison on the returned value.
>>
>> This removes a checkpatch warning.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_sysfs.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_sysfs.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_sysfs.c
>> index 290bf6e..3ea23a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_sysfs.c
>> @@ -90,17 +90,21 @@ void dgnc_remove_driver_sysfiles(struct pci_driver *dgnc_driver)
>> driver_remove_file(driverfs, &driver_attr_pollrate);
>> }
>>
>> -#define DGNC_VERIFY_BOARD(p, bd) \
>> - do { \
>> - if (!p) \
>> - return 0; \
>> - \
>> - bd = dev_get_drvdata(p); \
>> - if (!bd || bd->magic != DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC) \
>> - return 0; \
>> - if (bd->state != BOARD_READY) \
>> - return 0; \
>> - } while (0)
>> +static struct dgnc_board *dgnc_get_board(struct device *p)
>> +{
>> + struct dgnc_board *bd;
>> +
>> + if (!p)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + bd = dev_get_drvdata(p);
>> + if (!bd || bd->magic != DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC)
>> + return NULL;
>> + if (bd->state != BOARD_READY)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + return bd;
>> +}
>
> No, this macro should be removed entirely as what it does is pointless
> in some parts, wrong in others, and not needed at all in the rest :(
>
> I've asked others to fix this up properly in the past, but it doesn't
> seem like anyone wants to do the work...
>
I tried to find the discussion the relevant mails in lkml.org but
couldn't find them. Could you point me to them so I can have a look?
Thanks.
> I don't want to take this patch as it will hide the real issues here.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists