Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] rtl2832 ver. 0.4: removed signal statistics

[Antti Palosaari <crope@iki.fi>]

On 18.05.2012 20:46, Thomas Mair wrote:
> On 18.05.2012 15:26, poma wrote:
>> On 05/18/2012 02:38 PM, Antti Palosaari wrote:
>>> On 18.05.2012 13:38, poma wrote:
>>>> […]
>>>>
>>>> printk(KERN_ERR LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>> pr_err(LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>>
>>>> printk(KERN_INFO LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>> pr_info(LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>>
>>>> printk(KERN_WARNING LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>> pr_warn(LOG_PREFIX": " f "\n" , ## arg)
>>>>
>>>> Besides what 'checkpatch' suggest/output - Antti, is it a correct
>>>> conversions?
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't looked those pr_err/pr_info/pr_warn, but what I did for
>>> af9035/af9033 was I used pr_debug as a debug writings since it seems to
>>> be choice of today.
>>>
>>> I still suspect those pr_* functions should be used instead own macros.
>>> Currently documentation mentions only pr_debug and pr_info.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Antit
>>
>> OK, thanks Antti!
>> Thomas, dropping 'rtl2832_priv.h.diff'&  'rtl2832_priv.h-v2.diff'
>> Please leave 'rtl2832_priv.h' as it is.
>> And there you go…
>>
>> cheers,
>> poma
>
> Alright. One last question though.
>
> I seem incapable of removing the checkpatch error with the parentheses.
> How should that be done properly? Should do something like do { ... } while(0)
> or is there a more elegant solution?

I have seen that do { ... } while(0) many times in Kernel sources so it 
is likely the proper solution.

regards
Antti
-- 
http://palosaari.fi/