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 <cr...@craiginches.com>
> ---
> 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
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
