On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:03:43PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 23:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:42:12PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:20 +0200, Lorenz Haspel wrote:
> > > > fixed checkpatch error:
> > > > added parenthesis around complex macro.
> > > >
> > > > Macro with return was only used once in the code,
> > > > so I expandet it in-place.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > > []
> > > > -#define lock_bpctl() \
> > > > -if (down_interruptible(&bpctl_sema)) { \
> > > > - return -ERESTARTSYS; \
> > > > -} \
> > > > -
> > > > #define unlock_bpctl() \
> > > > up(&bpctl_sema);
> > >
> > > Symmetry please.
> > >
> > > Most likely, this unlock_bpctl macro is only used once too.
> > > I suggest removing it as well.
> > >
> >
> > Joe is right, of course, but this could be fixed in a later patch.
>
> Generally I think it's better that new submitters patches
> should go through more strict reviews and be as correct
> as possible. I think this is especially true for patches
> that are just checkpatch driven.
I totally disagree, sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
