Re: [PATCH] Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:25:43AM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Fatih YILDIRIM <yildirim.fatih@gmail.com>
> ---
> Hi,
> I have a coding style fix.
> By the way, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge Linux kernel tasks
> and this is my first patch related to my task no 10.
> I hope I'm doing it the right way.
> Thanks for your understanding and kind comments.
> 
>  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 */
>  
>  /* 11g rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_6M	(u8)(60 / 5)	/* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_12M	(u8)(120 / 5)	/* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_24M	(u8)(240 / 5)	/* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_9M	(u8)(90 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_18M	(u8)(180 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_36M	(u8)(360 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_48M	(u8)(480 / 5)
> -#define TX_RATE_54M	(u8)(540 / 5)
> +#define TX_RATE_6M	((u8)(60 / 5))	/* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_12M	((u8)(120 / 5))	/* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_24M	((u8)(240 / 5))	/* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_9M	((u8)(90 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_18M	((u8)(180 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_36M	((u8)(360 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_48M	((u8)(480 / 5))
> +#define TX_RATE_54M	((u8)(540 / 5))
>  
>  static inline bool is_11b_rate(u8 rate)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@linuxdriverproject.org
> http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot