On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Jaya Durga <rjdu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fix checkpatch.pl warning of the form "CHECK" Macro argument 'x'
> may be better as '(x)' to avoid precedence issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaya Durga <ja...@cdac.in>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_intf.h | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_intf.h 
> b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_intf.h
> index 1985423..dac6aed 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_intf.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_intf.h
> @@ -29,7 +29,10 @@
>  #include "osdep_service.h"
>  #include "drv_types.h"
>
> -#define RND4(x)        ((((x) >> 2) + ((((x) & 3) == 0) ?  0 : 1)) << 2)
> +static inline unsigned int RND4(unsigned int x)
> +{
> +       return (((x >> 2) + (((x & 3) == 0) ?  0 : 1)) << 2);
> +}

Looks like the checkpatch warning has already been addressed, or
checkpatch throws a false positive there.

I like this inline function better than the macro, since

RND(get_some_value());

may return funky results.

Frans
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Reply via email to