[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ceb54997-3057-81df-f3f0-e04b36e950c4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 18:17:47 +0530
From: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
To: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, hsweeten@...ionengravers.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, olsonse@...ch.edu, jkhasdev@...il.com,
giulio.benetti@...ronovasrl.com, nishadkamdar@...il.com,
kas.sandesh@...il.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: Remove variable runflags
On 31/05/19 3:55 PM, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 30/05/2019 21:51, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
>> Remove variable runflags and use its value directly. Issue found with
>> checkpatch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c | 8 ++------
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
>> b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
>> index f6d1287c7b83..b84ee9293903 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
>> @@ -676,16 +676,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(comedi_is_subdevice_running);
>> static bool __comedi_is_subdevice_running(struct comedi_subdevice *s)
>> {
>> - unsigned int runflags = __comedi_get_subdevice_runflags(s);
>> -
>> - return comedi_is_runflags_running(runflags);
>> + return
>> comedi_is_runflags_running(__comedi_get_subdevice_runflags(s));
>> }
>> bool comedi_can_auto_free_spriv(struct comedi_subdevice *s)
>> {
>> - unsigned int runflags = __comedi_get_subdevice_runflags(s);
>> -
>> - return runflags & COMEDI_SRF_FREE_SPRIV;
>> + return __comedi_get_subdevice_runflags(s) & COMEDI_SRF_FREE_SPRIV;
>> }
>> /**
>>
>
> I couldn't reproduce this checkpatch issue, even with '--subjective'.
I'm sorry, that was extremely careless of me. I used Coccinelle to find
this, not Checkpatch.
Here is the Coccinelle script I used:
@@identifier i1, i2, f1, f2; type T; expression e1, e2; statement S1, S2;@@
(
- T i1 = f1(...);
|
- T i1 = e1;
)
... when != e2 = <+...i1...+>
when != if (<+...i1...+>) S1 else S2
when != f2(...,<+...i1...+>,...)
when != i1->i2
when != i2[<+...i1...+>]
when != while(<+...i1...+>) S1
when != for(...;<+...i1...+>;...) S1
Again, I'm sorry for the confusion; I don't know why it happened, but it
won't happen again.
Nishka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists