[PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

[PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

[Selvakumar Elangovan]

This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
u_module in device.h

This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl

Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
@@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
 	struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
 };
 
-#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {	\
-	if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))			\
-		(uVar) = 0;				\
+#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {	\
+	if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1))			\
+		(u_var) = 0;				\
 	else						\
-		(uVar)++;				\
+		(u_var)++;				\
 }
 
 int vnt_init(struct vnt_private *priv);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> u_module in device.h
> 
> This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
>  	struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
>  };
>  
> -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {	\
> -	if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))			\
> -		(uVar) = 0;				\
> +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {	\

"u_" does not really make any sense, right?

Just use "var" and "modulo" please.

But first, why is this needed at all?  Isn't there an in-kernel function
that should be used instead?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

[Dan Carpenter]

You're not asking the right questions.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> u_module in device.h
> 

Is "u_var" a good name?  What does the "u_" even mean?

> This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
>  	struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
>  };
>  
> -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {	\
> -	if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))			\
> -		(uVar) = 0;				\
> +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {	\
> +	if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1))			\

The \ is not aligned any more.

> +		(u_var) = 0;				\
>  	else						\
> -		(uVar)++;				\
> +		(u_var)++;				\
>  }


This macro is rubbish.  How does the wrap around even make sense?
I hope that if you review the code a bit I think you will find that the
wrap around is impossible?  Just fix the two callers and delete this
macro.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

[Selvakumar E]

Hi Dan Carpenter

Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on the suggestion and come back with a fix.

Regards
Selvakumar Elangovan

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:42 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> You're not asking the right questions.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> > This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> > u_module in device.h
> >
>
> Is "u_var" a good name?  What does the "u_" even mean?
>
> > This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> > @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
> >       struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
> >  };
> >
> > -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {    \
> > -     if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))                  \
> > -             (uVar) = 0;                             \
> > +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {  \
> > +     if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1))                        \
>
> The \ is not aligned any more.
>
> > +             (u_var) = 0;                            \
> >       else                                            \
> > -             (uVar)++;                               \
> > +             (u_var)++;                              \
> >  }
>
>
> This macro is rubbish.  How does the wrap around even make sense?
> I hope that if you review the code a bit I think you will find that the
> wrap around is impossible?  Just fix the two callers and delete this
> macro.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>