linux-kernel - [PATCH] staging: bcm2835-camera: call function instead of macro

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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:47:47 +0530
From:   Kaaira Gupta <kgupta@...iitr.ac.in>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] staging: bcm2835-camera: call function instead of macro

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:37:11PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:37:28PM +0530, Kaaira Gupta wrote:
> > Fix checkpatch.pl warning of 'macro argument reuse' in bcm2835-camera.h
> > by removing the macro and calling the function, written in macro in
> > bcm2835-camera.h, directly in bcm2835-camera.c
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kaaira Gupta <kgupta@...iitr.ac.in>
> > ---
> >  .../bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c           | 28 +++++++++++++++----
> >  .../bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.h           | 10 -------
> >  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
> > index 1ef31a984741..19b3ba80d0e7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
> > @@ -919,9 +919,17 @@ static int vidioc_g_fmt_vid_cap(struct file *file, void *priv,
> >  	else
> >  		f->fmt.pix.colorspace = V4L2_COLORSPACE_SMPTE170M;
> >  	f->fmt.pix.priv = 0;
> > -
> > -	v4l2_dump_pix_format(1, bcm2835_v4l2_debug, &dev->v4l2_dev, &f->fmt.pix,
> > -			     __func__);
> > +	v4l2_dbg(1, bcm2835_v4l2_debug, &dev->v4l2_dev,
> > +		 "%s: w %u h %u field %u pfmt 0x%x bpl %u sz_img %u colorspace 0x%x priv %u\n",
> > +		  __func__,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->width,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->height,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->field,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->pixelformat,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->bytesperline,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->sizeimage,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->colorspace,
> > +		 (&f->fmt.pix)->priv);
> 
> This is not as nice to look at as the original.  Just ignore the
> warning.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
So, is this warning to be ignored from everywhere in every driver, as it
doesn't look good? And if yes, then why is it there in the first place?

Thanks!