Hi, Byungchul, Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> writes:
> It would be somewhat safer to put parentheses around parameters of > a macro with parameters. Put it. > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> > --- > include/linux/llist.h | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/llist.h b/include/linux/llist.h > index 1957635..e280b297 100644 > --- a/include/linux/llist.h > +++ b/include/linux/llist.h > @@ -183,10 +183,10 @@ static inline void init_llist_head(struct llist_head > *list) > * reverse the order by yourself before traversing. > */ > #define llist_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, node, member) > \ > - for (pos = llist_entry((node), typeof(*pos), member); \ > + for ((pos) = llist_entry((node), typeof(*(pos)), member); > \ > member_address_is_nonnull(pos, member) && \ > - (n = llist_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*n), member), true); \ > - pos = n) > + ((n) = llist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(n)), member), > true); \ > + (pos) = (n)) > > /** > * llist_empty - tests whether a lock-less list is empty The original code follows the style of list_for_each_entry_safe(). The parameters "pos" and "n" must be variable. Because list_xxx family functions work well so far, I think we needn't to change it too. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
