From: "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
To: Craig Inches <craig@craiginches.com>
Cc: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
"jsimmons@infradead.org" <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Hammond, John" <john.hammond@intel.com>,
"lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>,
"devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: lustre cleanup macros in libcfs_private.h
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:14:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60C0D42C-256A-4883-A0AF-C7E2CFA904BD@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170403211329.20264-1-Craig@craiginches.com>
On Apr 3, 2017, at 15:13, Craig Inches <craig@craiginches.com> 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 <Craig@craiginches.com>
> ---
> .../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..150454f 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)))
(style) keep operators at the end of the previous line, rather than the start
of the continued line
>
> #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)))
Minor nit - in cases like this where you need to split the line anyway, it
is cleaner (IMHO) to keep the whole statement together:
#define LASSERT_ATOMIC_EQ(a, v) \
LASSERTF(atomic_read(a) == v, "value: %d\n", atomic_read((a)))
Cheers, Andreas
>
> /** 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) \
> --
> 2.10.2
>
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-05 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 21:13 [PATCH] Staging: lustre cleanup macros in libcfs_private.h Craig Inches
2017-04-05 10:14 ` Dilger, Andreas [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=60C0D42C-256A-4883-A0AF-C7E2CFA904BD@intel.com \
--to=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=craig@craiginches.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=john.hammond@intel.com \
--cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).