From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F11DB71 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 15:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id gb21-20020a17090b0615b029015d1a863a91so1813660pjb.2 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:12:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ord6fAEI5pa3vLbCAlTEL5Ixb9JiPvq2Xdqyi33y9BI=; b=M/sHzds9a8295wb+vFFMV/JUqeIeU+vUJS1sX4FZqx4DzvwwhQ33d1zi+htfC8NCNF SpnU6vs7wc0Lib+RMVXDsvOOcqPPSCIKSa8dvQ51vbMmHcRvMnf3zxMYiDNWncBSDCrC gDbEqu2GU6WKGM8cBv7Kb9bDoeSjggxzOjldr38mqn9u1bmnFCqdJISQT7TPkfHHSSwF kMBqUZkyLsyRywNb7PDwGD57V+0/SYijvWKpaPvD1VKbVyTJlPqo+19RLktqM1lVvVMs nHuOgsQoBW9XC+iEWpmOQuvyZ8h+PK0eGDPacAZTgNcBetPPsXCPxcZgG6+lXA7mnPcE 3K7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ord6fAEI5pa3vLbCAlTEL5Ixb9JiPvq2Xdqyi33y9BI=; b=Sv36oDPAIUyxPl2biuCgd0qg5rpRXudq2ObdvicvdRheOVIi+bOQ/+UHDImUehSi1V YHZqOMsnY6vvQQiiOMiaeOnpO2j4MEfYq3UvIQBDUmoV3RiPZ1aGwfrpMOmhsc8HdRpO P7nt9MqJ3jKfe8MlErHGzcXj3C84n3c7HonYLJcvgbcNHXPe3khpoxJsduxxkSZkybsd oydT96C6xN0qsemph6qaclRtQIyt4rhT5yaZmqJc7E07PDbpymwNqWXcR096rYjGyc/S 82ra2NTej478BZZNzGAHtIxoDALWXEmNyGOPa8iZKmv8+vN9sX93q5WMDZTKmtF/bFbA bT5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532c0QFCDLPFg+LiL+5R/VHJe+YgnE78KIY1T9IMHazUqIlDC44j tkgCatlPnudSqwsel+lH5ROqT/8huKQfi+qH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWlZKIT6VersxrGK0t+xRw+CdJKziO3ciPN0f1GkGTrAmwmxwmfO9DkCNLLx05FOdUqOi9cA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e804:b029:ed:5748:9047 with SMTP id u4-20020a170902e804b02900ed57489047mr46158767plg.36.1621005142477; Fri, 14 May 2021 08:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fedora ([2405:201:6008:61b4:4e16:5348:d963:c66d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14sm7624439pjj.53.2021.05.14.08.12.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 May 2021 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 20:42:16 +0530 From: Shreyansh Chouhan To: Greg KH Cc: pure.logic@nexus-software.ie, johan@kernel.org, elder@kernel.org, greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition Message-ID: References: <20210514133039.304760-1-chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > 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? And yes, I will definitely be more careful in the future. > > thanks, > > greg k-h