Re: [PATCH 4/9v2] usb: host: ehci.h: fix single statement macros

From: Sergei Shtylyov
Date: Thu Dec 10 2015 - 12:26:30 EST


On 12/10/2015 05:56 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote:

Don't use the 'do {} while (0)' wrapper in a single statement macro.

Caught by checkpatch: "WARNING: Single statement macros should not
use a do {} while (0) loop"

Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem <geyslan@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/host/ehci.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
index cfeebd8..945000a 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h
@@ -244,9 +244,9 @@ struct ehci_hcd { /* one per
controller */
/* irq statistics */
#ifdef EHCI_STATS
struct ehci_stats stats;
-# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0)
+# define COUNT(x) ((x)++)
#else
-# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0)
+# define COUNT(x) ((void) 0)



Why not just empty #define?


Indeed. I'll change it.
Tks Sergei.


Since COUNT is not used to return the empty #define is ok. Another way
is to use #define COUNT(x) (0) to get a 0 when necessary to read
returns.

Just 0, no parens please.

Ok, no parens, since there's no evaluation.

It's because the literals don't need parens at all.

Then my change is:

-# define COUNT(x) do { (x)++; } while (0)
+# define COUNT(x) (++(x))
#else
-# define COUNT(x) do {} while (0)
+# define COUNT(x) 0

Pre-increment allowing to return the updated x.

Why if there was a post-increment before?

Anyway, this talk is quite pointless since the macro didn't return any value anyway.

MBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/