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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:57:04 +0300
From:   Fatih YILDIRIM <yildirim.fatih@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> 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

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your reply.
Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
Task is to find and fix a coding style in linux-next/drivers/staging.
I've checked many files with checkpatch.pl but they are almost fine :)
I found this one and prepared a patch for it.
Thanks in advance for your comments and advice.

Thanks,
Fatih