From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754979Ab0IBNpI (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:45:08 -0400 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:38653 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752927Ab0IBNpH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:45:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:44:57 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft To: Olimpiu Pascariu Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwalker@fifo99.com, joe@perches.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Checkpatch.pl false positive? "ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required" Message-ID: <20100902134457.GS2406@shadowen.org> References: <1269804493.7079.14.camel@tuxtm-linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1269804493.7079.14.camel@tuxtm-linux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:28:13PM +0300, Olimpiu Pascariu wrote: > Hi, > > I've used checkpatch.pl to verify drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c, > in order to provide a patch which fixes the errors and warnings found by > checkpatch. > The script returns the following error: > ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required > #155: FILE: staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c:155: > + return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head - > > The original code is: > > return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head - > dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len + > dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)% > (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers); > > I've deleted the the first open parenthesis and the last close > parenthesis, and now the code looks like this: > > return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head - > dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len + > dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)% > (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers); > > IMHO the code is correct, though an auxiliary variable could be used to > avoid this error returned by checkpatch.pl. This code is indeed correct. This is a bug in checkpatch, I think I have sorted out the bug in the version below (which should be mirrored out shortly). If you could test the version below and let me know that would be helpful: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-testing -apw