From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752186AbdDNIPS (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 04:15:18 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48976 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750784AbdDNIPQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 04:15:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:15:05 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Craig Inches Cc: oleg.drokin@intel.com, andreas.dilger@intel.com, jsimmons@infradead.org, john.hammond@intel.com, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] Staging: lustre cleanup macros in libcfs_private.h Message-ID: <20170414081505.GA16598@kroah.com> References: <20170413092441.GA22444@starbase.xayto.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170413092441.GA22444@starbase.xayto.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.1 (2017-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:24:41AM +0100, Craig Inches wrote: > This resolves a checkpatch warning that "Single statement macros should > not use a do {} while (0) loop" by removing the loop and adjusting line > length accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Craig Inches > --- > Changes in v2: > - Kept statements together > - Kept operator on previous line Why RESEND? > > .../lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h | 51 +++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h > index 2dae857..e774c75 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h > @@ -87,12 +87,9 @@ do { \ > #define LIBCFS_VMALLOC_SIZE (2 << PAGE_SHIFT) /* 2 pages */ > #endif > > -#define LIBCFS_ALLOC_PRE(size, mask) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERT(!in_interrupt() || \ > - ((size) <= LIBCFS_VMALLOC_SIZE && \ > - !gfpflags_allow_blocking(mask))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LIBCFS_ALLOC_PRE(size, mask) \ > + LASSERT(!in_interrupt() || ((size) <= LIBCFS_VMALLOC_SIZE && \ > + !gfpflags_allow_blocking(mask))) > > #define LIBCFS_ALLOC_POST(ptr, size) \ > do { \ > @@ -187,46 +184,28 @@ void cfs_array_free(void *vars); > #if LASSERT_ATOMIC_ENABLED > > /** assert value of @a is equal to @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_EQ(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) == v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_EQ(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) == v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is unequal to @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_NE(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) != v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_NE(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) != v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is little than @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_LT(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) < v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_LT(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) < v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is little/equal to @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_LE(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) <= v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_LE(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) <= v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is great than @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_GT(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) > v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_GT(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) > v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is great/equal to @v */ > -#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_GE(a, v) \ > -do { \ > - LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) >= v, \ > - "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))); \ > -} while (0) > +#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_GE(a, v) \ > + LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) >= v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a))) > > /** assert value of @a is great than @v1 and little than @v2 */ > #define LASSERT_ATOMIC_GT_LT(a, v1, v2) \ I need a lustre maintainer to ack this one before I can take it. Perhaps there was a good reasaon do { } while is used here... thanks, greg k-h