linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/4] soc: brcmstb: Add Product ID and Family ID helper functions

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: <1506025072.12311.29.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:17:52 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Al Cooper <al.cooper@...adcom.com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/4] soc: brcmstb: Add Product ID and Family ID
 helper functions

On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 15:16 -0400, Al Cooper wrote:
> Kishon,
> 
> I ran checkpatch on all my patches before submitting them and didn't
> get any warnings. It looks like you may be running checkpatch with the
> "--subjective" option. Is this a requirement and if so are there any
> other checkpatch options I should be using?
> 
> Thanks
> Al
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:54 AM, 'Kishon Vijay Abraham I' via
> BCM-KERNEL-FEEDBACK-LIST,PDL
> <bcm-kernel-feedback-list.pdl@...adcom.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Saturday 02 September 2017 07:45 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > On 08/25/2017 10:51 AM, Al Cooper wrote:
[]
> > I get the following checkpatch warning
> > CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'reg' - possible side-effects?
> > #110: FILE: include/linux/soc/brcmstb/brcmstb.h:4:
> > +#define BRCM_ID(reg)   ((u32)reg >> 28 ? (u32)reg >> 16 : (u32)reg >> 8)
[]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/soc/brcmstb/brcmstb.h b/include/linux/soc/brcmstb/brcmstb.h
> > > > index 337ce41..23e4dc9 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/soc/brcmstb/brcmstb.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/soc/brcmstb/brcmstb.h
> > > > @@ -1,10 +1,20 @@
> > > >  #ifndef __BRCMSTB_SOC_H
> > > >  #define __BRCMSTB_SOC_H
> > > > 
> > > > +#define BRCM_ID(reg)        ((u32)reg >> 28 ? (u32)reg >> 16 : (u32)reg >> 8)
> > > > +#define BRCM_REV(reg)       ((u32)reg & 0xff)

These should be (reg) to avoid a possible issue with
cast precedence or
maybe a use a statement expression
macro with a temporary to avoid the
reuse message.