Re: [PATCH 7/8] drivers/staging/vt6656: use ARRAY_SIZE macro in channel.c

[Nikitas Angelinas <nikitasangelinas@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 11:29:35AM +0200, Charles Clément wrote:
> I think this definition is not used anywhere in the driver and thus can
> be removed.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:27:55PM +0100, Nikitas Angelinas wrote:
> > Replace (sizeof(ChannelRuleTab) / sizeof(ChannelRuleTab[0])) with
> > ARRAY_SIZE(ChannelRuleTab) in drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nikitas Angelinas <nikitasangelinas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c
> > index 6ad03e4..a2460ae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/channel.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >   *
> >   */
> >  
> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >  #include "country.h"
> >  #include "channel.h"
> >  #include "rf.h"
> > @@ -367,7 +368,7 @@ static  struct
> >  /*                                           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  */
> >  };
> >  
> > -#define NUM_RULES	(sizeof(ChannelRuleTab) / sizeof(ChannelRuleTab[0]))
> > +#define NUM_RULES	ARRAY_SIZE(ChannelRuleTab)
> >  
> >  /*---------------------  Export function  -------------------------*/
> >  /************************************************************************
> > -- 
> > 1.7.2.3
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@linuxdriverproject.org
> > http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
> -- 
> Charles Clément
Yup, doesn't seem to be used anywhere; the file also has some coding
style issues, so perhaps removing the macro can be part of a cleanup
patch for whoever may carry out that task.

In that case, I guess reverting the patch from staging-next might be an
option, but I think what's really needed is for someone to go through
the driver source and do what's necessary... At first glance, it seems
possible that the macro (NUM_RULES) may indeed have to be used as a 
replacement for the hard-coded CB_MAX_CHANNEL, but the author may not 
have gotten around to it or didn't make use of it for some other reason.