From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C45C433E6 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B281821473 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:56:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598896614; bh=ERddwSmbW2NDx5hhDfjr7bYktdj7MbTDA/T+l3ouxuA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=K5QuCAyrkS1EZPpEgw48+Sf2k5yU4/9QMF9GgkMOQugUX9DwigRTaimSaMJ1LigUs iHA6S5dDJAW4Mw23omTiPnWAGKw6HNoCee9XlZMxuSS4PBZTwckJ9nqnBmLzI2upYO y2MOIH/U9NBJAvZfEE3qnT8PdWuR8cehCer7YZ+w= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728306AbgHaR4x (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:56:53 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51948 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726204AbgHaR4w (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:56:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C8042064B; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:56:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598896612; bh=ERddwSmbW2NDx5hhDfjr7bYktdj7MbTDA/T+l3ouxuA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ed2/ahwDFtWyuYHg7VAwF7L4DHDXj3ep2TYL4IqTyA/werP9qDfP9UPDItciQdFSJ TZtQ+DXRAo5LNwOxxzS6GKp2uY6rO2En7+lzNV9UIB4g+OoUwcC1WZMIaxYOP20FLi kxHHt/EEok389WReTP+xDrG4KEb+Fa6CAjJj9DP4= Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:56:59 +0200 From: Greg KH To: antoniprzybylik Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: fixed two macros by adding brackets Message-ID: <20200831175659.GA2556308@kroah.com> References: <20200831160332.8507-1-antoni.przybylik@wp.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200831160332.8507-1-antoni.przybylik@wp.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 06:03:32PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote: > Added brackets to two macros. That says _what_ you did, but not _why_ you did it. Why did you do it? What does this fix? Does it make sense to do this? And why these two macros? Be specific please. > > Signed-off-by: Antoni Przybylik > --- > drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 3 +-- > drivers/staging/gdm724x/netlink_k.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c > index 6e813693a766..5cd94347bf78 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ > > #define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048 > > -#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count) > +#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) ((gdm) && (gdm)->tty_dev && (gdm)->port.count) > > static struct tty_driver *gdm_driver[TTY_MAX_COUNT]; > static struct gdm *gdm_table[TTY_MAX_COUNT][GDM_TTY_MINOR]; > @@ -323,4 +323,3 @@ void unregister_lte_tty_driver(void) > } > } > } > - You also deleted a line without saying so :( > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/netlink_k.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/netlink_k.c > index 7902e52a699b..399b7b4b536f 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/netlink_k.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/netlink_k.c > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(netlink_mutex); > #define ND_NLMSG_DATA(nlh) ((void *)((char *)NLMSG_DATA(nlh) + \ > ND_IFINDEX_LEN)) > #define ND_NLMSG_S_LEN(len) (len + ND_IFINDEX_LEN) > -#define ND_NLMSG_R_LEN(nlh) (nlh->nlmsg_len - ND_IFINDEX_LEN) > +#define ND_NLMSG_R_LEN(nlh) ((nlh)->nlmsg_len - ND_IFINDEX_LEN) Does that really make sense to change? thanks, greg k-h