staging: vme_user: Remove redundant parentheses
PATCH 1/1 staging: vme_user: Remove redundant parentheses
Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
Reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around (...)
--- drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c +9 -9
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_slave_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,mutex_lock (&slave_image->mtx);if (((slave_image->address_attr & address) == address) && ((slave_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) && - (slave_image->locked ==0 )) { + slave_image->locked ==0 ) { slave_image->locked =1 ;mutex_unlock (&slave_image->mtx); allocated_image = slave_image;
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_master_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,if (((master_image->address_attr & address) == address) && ((master_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) && ((master_image->width_attr & dwidth) == dwidth) && - (master_image->locked ==0 )) { + master_image->locked ==0 ) { master_image->locked =1 ;spin_unlock (&master_image->lock); allocated_image = master_image;
@@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_dma_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 route)/* Find an unlocked and compatible controller */ mutex_lock (&dma_ctrlr->mtx);if (((dma_ctrlr->route_attr & route) == route) && - (dma_ctrlr->locked ==0 )) { + dma_ctrlr->locked ==0 ) { dma_ctrlr->locked =1 ;mutex_unlock (&dma_ctrlr->mtx); allocated_ctrlr = dma_ctrlr;
@@ -1218,9 +1218,9 @@ void vme_bus_error_handler(struct vme_bridge *bridge,u32 aspace =vme_get_aspace (am);list_for_each_entry (handler, &bridge->vme_error_handlers, list) { -if ((aspace == handler->aspace) && - (address >= handler->start) && - (address < handler->end)) { +if (aspace == handler->aspace && + address >= handler->start && + address < handler->end) {if (!handler->num_errors) handler->first_error = address;if (handler->num_errors !=UINT_MAX )
@@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ int vme_irq_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid,return -EINVAL ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_err (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return -EINVAL ; }
@@ -1357,7 +1357,7 @@ void vme_irq_free(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)return ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_err (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return ; }
@@ -1405,7 +1405,7 @@ int vme_irq_generate(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)return -EINVAL ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_warn (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return -EINVAL ; }
Signature · 1 line
2.39.2
Quoted 7 lines · Tyler Taormina
Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
Reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around (...)
Signed-off-by Tyler Taormina <[email protected]>
Staging tree's maintainer (Greg) disagrees with checkpatch.pl on this one and prefers to keep these parentheses. So I would leave them be.
You can look up the staging mailing list for details.
Best regards,
Nam
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 86 lines · Tyler Taormina
Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
Reported by checkpatch:
CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around (...)
Signed-off-by Tyler Taormina <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c +9
-9@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_slave_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,mutex_lock (&slave_image->mtx);if (((slave_image->address_attr & address) == address) && ((slave_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) && - (slave_image->locked ==0 )) { + slave_image->locked ==0 ) { slave_image->locked =1 ;mutex_unlock (&slave_image->mtx); allocated_image = slave_image;@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_master_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,if (((master_image->address_attr & address) == address) && ((master_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) && ((master_image->width_attr & dwidth) == dwidth) && - (master_image->locked ==0 )) { + master_image->locked ==0 ) { master_image->locked =1 ;spin_unlock (&master_image->lock); allocated_image = master_image;@@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_dma_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 route)/* Find an unlocked and compatible controller */ mutex_lock (&dma_ctrlr->mtx);if (((dma_ctrlr->route_attr & route) == route) && - (dma_ctrlr->locked ==0 )) { + dma_ctrlr->locked ==0 ) { dma_ctrlr->locked =1 ;mutex_unlock (&dma_ctrlr->mtx); allocated_ctrlr = dma_ctrlr;@@ -1218,9 +1218,9 @@ void vme_bus_error_handler(struct vme_bridge *bridge,u32 aspace =vme_get_aspace (am);list_for_each_entry (handler, &bridge->vme_error_handlers, list) { -if ((aspace == handler->aspace) && - (address >= handler->start) && - (address < handler->end)) { +if (aspace == handler->aspace && + address >= handler->start && + address < handler->end) {if (!handler->num_errors) handler->first_error = address;if (handler->num_errors !=UINT_MAX )@@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ int vme_irq_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid,return -EINVAL ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_err (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return -EINVAL ; }@@ -1357,7 +1357,7 @@ void vme_irq_free(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)return ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_err (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return ; }@@ -1405,7 +1405,7 @@ int vme_irq_generate(struct vme_dev *vdev, int level, int statid)return -EINVAL ; } -if ((level <1 ) || (level >7 )) { +if (level <1 || level >7 ) {dev_warn (bridge->parent,"Invalid interrupt level\n" );return -EINVAL ; }Signature · 1 line
2.39.2
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below:
- You sent a patch that has been sent multiple times in the past, and is identical to ones that has been rejected. Please always look at the mailing list traffic to determine if you are duplicating other people's work.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot