On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:44:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0300, Alexey Tulia wrote: > > This fixes the following warning: > > - WARNING: __constant_cpu_to_le32 should be cpu_to_le32 > > What produces this warning? >
This warning was found by checkpatch.pl -f > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Tulia <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c > > b/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c > > index 0007d30..e21c1b4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/vhci_hcd.c > > @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static int vhci_hub_control(struct usb_hcd *hcd, u16 > > typeReq, u16 wValue, > > break; > > case GetHubStatus: > > usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(" GetHubStatus\n"); > > - *(__le32 *) buf = __constant_cpu_to_le32(0); > > + *(__le32 *) buf = cpu_to_le32(0); > > How is this correct? Why shouldn't __constant_cpu_to_le32() be used > here? Heck, why can't we just use 0 given that it doesn't matter the > endianness of that specific value :) It may be so, but anyway the __constant_cpu_to_le32 produced a warning and it was obvious to clean up this part of code a bit. However, the 0 value possibly can change to other value in future and this macro acts as a safety net here. > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
