linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] scsi: dc395x: improve code formatting for the macros

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: <1ae97d061da14b0d85c0938c3000ed57ccd39382.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 09:09:40 -0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Xinhui Yang <cyan@...no.uk>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Mingcong Bai <jeffbai@...c.io>, Kexy Biscuit
	 <kexybiscuit@...c.io>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, Ali Akcaagac
	 <aliakc@....de>, Jamie Lenehan <lenehan@...bble.org>, "Martin K. Petersen"
	 <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] scsi: dc395x: improve code formatting for the
 macros

On Tue, 2025-09-23 at 20:52 +0800, Xinhui Yang wrote:
> These DC395x_* macros does not have white spaces around their
> arguments,
> thus checkpatch.pl throws an error for each change in the macros.
> 
> Also, there are no surrounding parentheses in the expressions for the
> read and write macros, which checkpatch.pl also complained about.
> 
> This patch does only formatting improvements to make the macro
> definitions align with the previous patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xinhui Yang <cyan@...no.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/dc395x.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/dc395x.c b/drivers/scsi/dc395x.c
> index aed4f21e8143..cff6fa20e53c 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/dc395x.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/dc395x.c
> @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@
>  #endif
>  
>  
> -#define
> DC395x_LOCK_IO(dev,flags)		spin_lock_irqsave(((struct Scsi_Host *)dev)->host_lock,flags)
> -#define
> DC395x_UNLOCK_IO(dev,flags)		spin_unlock_irqrestore(((struct Scsi_Host*)dev)->host_lock,flags)
> +#define DC395x_LOCK_IO(dev,
> flags)		spin_lock_irqsave(((struct Scsi_Host *)dev)->host_lock, flags)
> +#define DC395x_UNLOCK_IO(dev,
> flags)		spin_unlock_irqrestore(((struct Scsi_Host *)dev)->host_lock, flags)
>  
>  /*
>   * read operations that may trigger side effects in the hardware,
> @@ -100,12 +100,12 @@
>   */
>  #define DC395x_peek8(acb, address)		((void)(inb(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))))
>  /* normal read write operations goes here. */
> -#define DC395x_read8(acb,address)		(u8)(inb(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))
> -#define DC395x_read16(acb,address)		(u16)(inw(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))
> -#define DC395x_read32(acb,address)		(u32)(inl(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))
> -#define DC395x_write8(acb,address,value)	outb((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))
> -#define DC395x_write16(acb,address,value)	outw((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))
> -#define DC395x_write32(acb,address,value)	outl((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))
> +#define DC395x_read8(acb, address)		((u8)    (inb(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))))
> +#define DC395x_read16(acb, address)		((u16)   (inw(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))))
> +#define DC395x_read32(acb, address)		((u32)   (inl(acb-
> >io_port_base + (address))))

This doesn't look right.  The problem checkpatch is complaining about
is surely that the cast makes it a compound statement.  However, since
inb inw and inl all return the types they're being cast to the correct
solution is surely to remove the cast making these single statements
that don't need parentheses.

> +#define DC395x_write8(acb, address, value)	(outb((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))
> +#define DC395x_write16(acb, address, value)	(outw((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))
> +#define DC395x_write32(acb, address, value)	(outl((value), acb-
> >io_port_base + (address)))

And these are single statements which shouldn't need parentheses.  Are
you sure checkpatch is complaining about this, because if it is then
checkpatch needs fixing.

Regards,

James