Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: Addressed checkpatch.pl issues related to macro parameter wrapping in parentheses.

[Ricardo Ferreira]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 15:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 02:51:25PM +0100, Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
> >  #define init_h2fwcmd_w_parm_no_rsp(pcmd, pparm, code) \
> >  do {\
> > -     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcmd->list);\
> > -     pcmd->cmdcode = code;\
> > -     pcmd->parmbuf = (u8 *)(pparm);\
> > -     pcmd->cmdsz = sizeof(*pparm);\
> > -     pcmd->rsp = NULL;\
> > -     pcmd->rspsz = 0;\
> > +     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(pcmd)->list);\
> > +     (pcmd)->cmdcode = code;\
> > +     (pcmd)->parmbuf = (u8 *)((pparm));\
> > +     (pcmd)->cmdsz = sizeof(*(pparm));\
> > +     (pcmd)->rsp = NULL;\
> > +     (pcmd)->rspsz = 0;\
> >  } while (0)
>
> Does that change really make any sense?  checkpatch is a nice hint,
> sometimes it is not correct...

(Replying again since I mistakenly sent my comments only to Greg...)

Yeah I was over-eager and applied some of checkpatche's patches
without thinking twice... I guess the parenthesis wrapping only makes
sense when you have an operator (either binary or unary). I've
rechecked each macro identified by checkpatch to see if there is a
need for parenthesis wrapping in their current usage.

Regards,
Ricardo Ferreira.