Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fixes for DP8393X SONIC device emulation

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 12/14/19 3:52 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, address@hidden wrote:
>
> > === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
> > 1/10 Checking commit 9c9ffc38e9b9 (dp8393x: Mask EOL bit from descriptor 
> > addresses)
> > ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> > #24: FILE: hw/net/dp8393x.c:200:
> > +    return (s->regs[SONIC_URDA] << 16) | (s->regs[SONIC_CRDA] & 0xfffe);
> >
> > ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> > #33: FILE: hw/net/dp8393x.c:220:
> > +    return (s->regs[SONIC_UTDA] << 16) | (s->regs[SONIC_TTDA] & 0xfffe);
>
> I expect that checkpatch.pl has no idea about operator precedence, but
> these parentheses could actually be omitted.
>
> I kept them because I don't want readers to have to remember that bit
> shift operator has higher precedence than bitwise OR operator, or look it
> up if they don't.
>
> The existing code also has those unnecessary parentheses.
>
> Please let me know if this patch should include a code style change.

This is a bug in checkpatch. Since this script doesn't have dedicated 
maintainer, I Cc'ed the recent contributors:

$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f scripts/checkpatch.pl
get_maintainer.pl: No maintainers found, printing recent contributors.