Re: checkpatch: comparisons with a constant on the left

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (10/10/19 20:23), Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:52 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> 
> Hi Sergey.

Hi Joe,

For some reason your reply triggered gmail spam filter; took
me a while to notice and "recover" it from spam folder.

[..]
> > Both LINUX_VERSION_CODE and KERNEL_VERSION are constants, so
> > I'm wondering if it's worth it to improve that check a tiny
> > bit.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> My preference is for people to ignore checkpatch
> message bleats when they don't make overall sense.
> 
> checkpatch thinks anything that uses a form like
> "name(<args...>)" is a function.

For example, DMA_BIT_MASK(xxx) can look like a function
call yet still be a compile time constant.

Another example could be ARRAY_SIZE(xxx), I guess.

[..]
> but then again just using LINUX_VERSION_CODE emits a
> warning message, so it's better to remove whatever is
> in the block anyway... <smile>

That's certainly right. LINUX_VERSION_CODE should not be in the
code, I agree. I was thinking more about 'const vs const' comparison
in general, less about particular LINUX_VERSION_CODE case.

	-ss