linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] staging: ks7010: Macros with complex values

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: <YCUAy1VhLV3lwa3H@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:02:51 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Fatih Yildirim <yildirim.fatih@...il.com>
Cc:     gustavo@...eddedor.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] staging: ks7010: Macros with complex values

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <yildirim.fatih@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
>  #define TX_RATE_FIXED		5
>  
>  /* 11b rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_1M	(u8)(10 / 5)	/* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_2M	(u8)(20 / 5)	/* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_5M	(u8)(55 / 5)	/* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_11M	(u8)(110 / 5)	/* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_1M	((u8)(10 / 5))	/* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_2M	((u8)(20 / 5))	/* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_5M	((u8)(55 / 5))	/* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_11M	((u8)(110 / 5))	/* 11g basic rate */

But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
right?

Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
what is happening.  With your knowledge of C, does this look like
something that needs to be "fixed"?

thanks,

greg k-h