Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition

Shreyansh Chouhan
2021-05-14T15:35:03Z

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 <chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > 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