linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Parenthesize macro arguments

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 05:49:20 -0700
From:   Soumya Negi <soumya.negi97@...il.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Micky Ching <micky_ching@...lsil.com.cn>,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Parenthesize macro arguments

Hi Julia,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote:
> 
> > Hi Dan,
> > > For these ones, the name is too generic.  probably the right thing is
> > > to just get rid of them completely and call spin_lock/unlock_irq()
> > > directly.
> >
> > I understand that there should be 2 different patches, one for the
> > macro-to-function rewrites & one for replacing the scsi lock/unlock macros with
> > direct spinlock calls. But, should these be in a patchset(they are vaguely
> > related since the patches together would get rid of the checkpatch warnings)?
> > I'm not sure.
> 
> Patch set, since they affect the same file.  Otherwise, Greg doesn't know
> in what order to apply them.

Thank you for explaining each point. I'm sending over the patch set for
review in a new email thread.

- Soumya

> julia