[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d65cd737-61a5-4b31-7f25-e72f0a7f4ec2@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 09:52:53 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: jlayton@...nel.org, bfields@...ldses.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: remove trailing semicolon in macro definition
On 11/29/20 9:47 AM, Tom Rix wrote:
>
> On 11/27/20 11:53 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:07:07AM -0800, trix@...hat.com wrote:
>>> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
>>> @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fcntl64, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd,
>>> (dst)->l_whence = (src)->l_whence; \
>>> (dst)->l_start = (src)->l_start; \
>>> (dst)->l_len = (src)->l_len; \
>>> - (dst)->l_pid = (src)->l_pid;
>>> + (dst)->l_pid = (src)->l_pid
>> This should be wrapped in a do { } while (0).
>>
>> Look, this warning is clearly great at finding smelly code, but the
>> fixes being generated to shut up the warning are low quality.
>>
> Multiline macros not following the do {} while (0) pattern are likely a larger problem.
>
> I'll take a look.
Could it become a static inline function instead?
or that might expand its scope too much?
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists