Messages in this thread | | | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Date | Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:30:17 +0900 | Subject | Re: checkpatch: comparisons with a constant on the left |
| |
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
| |