From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 26/40] arch/sparc: uaccess_64 macro whitespace fixes
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:53:39 +0100
Message-ID: <20150106165339.GA11270@ravnborg.org>
References: <1420558883-10131-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
 <1420558883-10131-27-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from asavdk4.altibox.net ([109.247.116.15]:45444 "EHLO
	asavdk4.altibox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756107AbbAFRDU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:03:20 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1420558883-10131-27-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:44:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Macros within arch/sparc/include/asm/uaccess_64.h are made harder to
> read because they violate a bunch of coding style rules.
> 
> Fix it up.
As per Davem's earlier mail please prefix using sparc32/sparc64.

> -#define __put_user_nocheck(data,addr,size) ({ \
> -register int __pu_ret; \
> -switch (size) { \
> -case 1: __put_user_asm(data,b,addr,__pu_ret); break; \
> -case 2: __put_user_asm(data,h,addr,__pu_ret); break; \
> -case 4: __put_user_asm(data,w,addr,__pu_ret); break; \
> -case 8: __put_user_asm(data,x,addr,__pu_ret); break; \
> -default: __pu_ret = __put_user_bad(); break; \
> -} __pu_ret; })
> -
> -#define __put_user_asm(x,size,addr,ret)					\
> +#define __put_user_nocheck(data, addr, size) ({ \
> +	register int __pu_ret; \
> +	switch (size) { \
> +	case 1: \
> +		__put_user_asm(data, b, addr, __pu_ret); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 2: \
> +		__put_user_asm(data, h, addr, __pu_ret); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 4: \
> +		__put_user_asm(data, w, addr, __pu_ret); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 8: \
> +		__put_user_asm(data, x, addr, __pu_ret); \
> +		break; \
> +	default: \
> +		__pu_ret = __put_user_bad(); \
> +		break; \
> +	} \
> +	__pu_ret; \
> +})

No matter what coding style says - the above is much less readable than the
original version.



> -#define __get_user_nocheck(data,addr,size,type) ({ \
> -register int __gu_ret; \
> -register unsigned long __gu_val; \
> -switch (size) { \
> -case 1: __get_user_asm(__gu_val,ub,addr,__gu_ret); break; \
> -case 2: __get_user_asm(__gu_val,uh,addr,__gu_ret); break; \
> -case 4: __get_user_asm(__gu_val,uw,addr,__gu_ret); break; \
> -case 8: __get_user_asm(__gu_val,x,addr,__gu_ret); break; \
> -default: __gu_val = 0; __gu_ret = __get_user_bad(); break; \
> -} data = (__force type) __gu_val; __gu_ret; })
> -
> -#define __get_user_nocheck_ret(data,addr,size,type,retval) ({ \
> -register unsigned long __gu_val __asm__ ("l1"); \
> -switch (size) { \
> -case 1: __get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val,ub,addr,retval); break; \
> -case 2: __get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val,uh,addr,retval); break; \
> -case 4: __get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val,uw,addr,retval); break; \
> -case 8: __get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val,x,addr,retval); break; \
> -default: if (__get_user_bad()) return retval; \
> -} data = (__force type) __gu_val; })
> -
> -#define __get_user_asm(x,size,addr,ret)					\
> +#define __get_user_nocheck(data, addr, size, type) ({ \
> +	register int __gu_ret; \
> +	register unsigned long __gu_val; \
> +	switch (size) { \
> +		case 1: \
> +			__get_user_asm(__gu_val, ub, addr, __gu_ret); \
> +			break; \
> +		case 2: \
> +			__get_user_asm(__gu_val, uh, addr, __gu_ret); \
> +			break; \
> +		case 4: \
> +			__get_user_asm(__gu_val, uw, addr, __gu_ret); \
> +			break; \
> +		case 8: \
> +			__get_user_asm(__gu_val, x, addr, __gu_ret); \
> +			break; \
> +		default: \
> +			__gu_val = 0; \
> +			__gu_ret = __get_user_bad(); \
> +			break; \
> +	} data = (__force type) __gu_val; __gu_ret; \
> +})
> +
> +#define __get_user_nocheck_ret(data, addr, size, type, retval) ({ \
> +	register unsigned long __gu_val __asm__ ("l1"); \
> +	switch (size) { \
> +	case 1: \
> +		__get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val, ub, addr, retval); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 2: \
> +		__get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val, uh, addr, retval); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 4: \
> +		__get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val, uw, addr, retval); \
> +		break; \
> +	case 8: \
> +		__get_user_asm_ret(__gu_val, x, addr, retval); \
> +		break; \
> +	default: \
> +		if (__get_user_bad()) \
> +			return retval; \
> +	} \
> +	data = (__force type) __gu_val; \
> +})
> +

Same comment for this code chunk.

	Sam