[PATCH] staging: Fix spacing between function name and parentheses

[xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)]

Thanks Hugo,
Sorry about that. On the other hand was the patch good in terms of format?
Cheers Nick 

On 14-10-11 09:52 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, nick wrote:
>> Thank you for your help, I'll study the code and see what I can do
>> about it. Do you have any suggestions of how to fix this checkpatch
>> warning?
> 
>    Ignore it. The checker has clearly triggered on a false positive --
> this is not a function call, and should not be held to that standard.
> (Take a look at where the macro is actually used, to see what's going
> on here). Move on to find something more interesting to fix.
> 
>    Hugo.
> 
>> Nick
>>
>> On 14-10-11 05:53 AM, Kristofer Hallin wrote:
>>> Even if you use checkpath you _should_ understand what you are changing.
>>> The output of checkpatch merely there to help.
>>>
>>> In this case you can see that this is a macro just a few lines up in the
>>> code.
>>> On 11 Oct 2014 11:46, "Sudip Mukherjee" <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree. But in my opinion checkpatch is here to help us fix style
>>>> problems , but we should not blindly act on checkpatch warnings.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> sudip
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin
>>>> <peter.senna@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think that, in this case, checkpatch.pl contributed:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>> WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '('
>>>>> #415: FILE: drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c:415:
>>>>> +                       if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>    \
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Agreed - that is why I mentioned the patch is neither right nor useful:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -daveti
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>> sudipm.mukherjee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>> It will work. But my point of saying that was  c.s.field ==(value) is
>>>>>>> again not according to the style.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It also works as value is surrounded by (), though I do not think the
>>>> patch itself is right or useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Tian
>>>>>>>> dave.jing.tian at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>> sudipm.mukherjee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:55:48PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes checkpatch coding style warning about unneeded space
>>>>>>>>>> between function name an parentheses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> Untested
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>> b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 5f9db4c..bbeb0cc 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ struct octeon_hcd {
>>>>>>>>>>             type c;
>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>             while (1) {
>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>                     c.u32 = __cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address);
>>>>     \
>>>>>>>>>> -                    if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>> +                    if (c.s.field op(value)) {
>>>>       \
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have you read the code before modifying it?
>>>>>>>>> this is not a function.
>>>>>>>>> have you seen how CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 is being called?
>>>>>>>>> on every call of CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 op is the operator "=="
>>>>>>>>> so when called the macro will be c.s.field == (value).
>>>>>>>>> if your patch is applied then it will become c.s.field ==(value) ..
>>>> will that be correct ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                             result = 0;
>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>                             break;
>>>>     \
>>>>>>>>>>                     } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) {
>>>>      \
>