From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f173.google.com (mail-pg1-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADC2271 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 15:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f173.google.com with SMTP id j12so18292892pgh.7 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=b9PHGu8ICX6Bvm2mYeN1sFRXlXnYrgx9wiY9e9NTzRA=; b=J47PUO/OkQ1tCchPsNPQkCRt64WXh3Kno7Kx1fXemegkRnTjjWXYMPwjful6mdjtnC uUjphafJqmijfpryZOdaGN6MwJjpFjCokLLT3/CyKHgI0QyMdqWUkOPO09MrJxsRdl6m 7f9hPBmpd1fNBQttYcSLNNYZ8y0V2c32cvvnlAuI562fzxqmVgtXmLlWpCVYYK/zRU/5 +myrKr+HmlRgPmgGoaPq7eVfrCw/gzIt90AnwOxLIiArvLELGRhjhKTbJF+EKicNl4e6 LcchwcaBhkKzVQTY9nO9RGDMiDW6TGAckKjg9Ok2YAmfHe0bgKs3RN3DFADUks9s8AR5 GVGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=b9PHGu8ICX6Bvm2mYeN1sFRXlXnYrgx9wiY9e9NTzRA=; b=PfuVn/UcvAvGHcFUZvOwcU1g3EAtqRXYd3Eood0+a7xhyNh06HBzc/AuCrnAovljMr vvub9KGPcKdw+ljWfPirrgNyfO47P5uIr1qFye5cirnSRldPKoSMdjyjM7BMYxstMccG 1KcvjlWKcRFo+8AgL/tbRQXq64B1vJ07ZfuZHeBWB5N3waktIoe8Bckhplha3yPDp6/F PKglIcfH4KMnCSPVz6AZuDDrKLPq5ngPYAmGlTZv9PM/OX2iOytqaDkjjHMHI4nmLcM7 xbP7FmAYlWupNQnNmikedlBET3RXkT00YwKkDhcvbztY2oC218TSYUPFNxdNk/a5coZD 2Kbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530888Eularfe9Y8A76Xvj/nZqtffNK7YS5ArepSD9HUMKzfedsi TBDNY2Gjbu7PQALN62zAbck= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSW4vXEaS7uZcsalnr3Z17EqZyvHlcPX17NF5gUCEe3OElod6FIMluCdazJmbiX7N2tzWC1g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1384:b029:2c7:fcda:8d83 with SMTP id t4-20020a056a001384b02902c7fcda8d83mr21348365pfg.0.1621006500095; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fedora ([2405:201:6008:61b4:4e16:5348:d963:c66d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a190sm4057600pfb.185.2021.05.14.08.34.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 May 2021 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 21:04:54 +0530 From: Shreyansh Chouhan To: Greg KH Cc: pure.logic@nexus-software.ie, johan@kernel.org, elder@kernel.org, greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition Message-ID: References: <20210514133039.304760-1-chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 05:30:45PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:42:16PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:30:23PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 07:53:57PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:05:32PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 07:18:38PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 03:36:25PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 07:00:39PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote: > > > > > > > > The gb_loopback_stats_attrs macro, (defined in loopback.c,) is a > > > > > > > > multiline macro whose statements were not enclosed in a do while > > > > > > > > loop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds a do while loop around the statements of the said > > > > > > > > macro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shreyansh Chouhan > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/greybus/loopback.c | 10 ++++++---- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/loopback.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/loopback.c > > > > > > > > index 2471448ba42a..c88ef3e894fa 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/loopback.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/loopback.c > > > > > > > > @@ -162,10 +162,12 @@ static ssize_t name##_avg_show(struct device *dev, \ > > > > > > > > } \ > > > > > > > > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name##_avg) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -#define gb_loopback_stats_attrs(field) \ > > > > > > > > - gb_loopback_ro_stats_attr(field, min, u); \ > > > > > > > > - gb_loopback_ro_stats_attr(field, max, u); \ > > > > > > > > - gb_loopback_ro_avg_attr(field) > > > > > > > > +#define gb_loopback_stats_attrs(field) \ > > > > > > > > + do { \ > > > > > > > > + gb_loopback_ro_stats_attr(field, min, u); \ > > > > > > > > + gb_loopback_ro_stats_attr(field, max, u); \ > > > > > > > > + gb_loopback_ro_avg_attr(field); \ > > > > > > > > + } while (0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define gb_loopback_attr(field, type) \ > > > > > > > > static ssize_t field##_show(struct device *dev, \ > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.31.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you test build this change? > > > > > > > > > > > > I built the module using make -C . M=drivers/staging/greybus to test > > > > > > build it. I didn't get any errors. > > > > > > > > > > Really? Can you provide the full build output for this file with your > > > > > change? I don't think you really built this file for the obvious > > > > > reasons... > > > > > > > > I ran make -C . M=drivers/staging/greybus > > > > > > > > I got a three line output saying: > > > > make: Entering directory '/work/linux' > > > > MODPOST drivers/staging/greybus//Module.symvers > > > > make: Leaving directory '/work/linux' > > > > > > > > I just tried rebuilding the kernel with CONFIG_GREYBUS=m, and now I can > > > > see what you are talking about. Why weren't these errors reported when I > > > > ran the previous make command? Does that too check for the config > > > > variables even when I specifically asked it to build a module? > > > > > > You were just asking it to build a subdirectory, not a specific > > > individual file, and when you do that it looks at the configuration > > > settings. > > > > > > > I see. > > > > > It's always good to ensure that you actually build the files you modify > > > before sending patches out. > > > > Sorry, I googled about building a single module, and thought running > > that command would have built it. Moreover, since the change was so > > simple I didn't suspect anything when it got built correctly the first > > time around. > > > > I didn't look at how/where was the macro called and missed a very > > obvious error. Now that I have looked at it, the only way I can think of > > fixing this is changing the macro to a (inline?) function. Will > > that be a desirable change? > > No, it can't be a function, the code is fine as-is, checkpatch is just a > perl script and does not always know what needs to be done. > I see. Thanks a lot for answering my queries. Also sorry for the noise. > thanks, > > greg k-h Regards, Shreyansh Chouhan