Re: [PATCH 7/7] xen/device_tree: Fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 20.7 violations

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.08.2022 12:43, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> On 8/22/22 12:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.08.2022 21:43, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
>>> In macros dt_for_each_property_node(), dt_for_each_device_node() and
>>> dt_for_each_child_node(), add parentheses around the macro parameters that
>>> have the arrow operator applied, to prevent against unintended expansions.
>>
>> Why is this relevant only when -> is used? For comparisons and the rhs of
>> assignments it's as relevant, ad even for the lhs of assignments I doubt
>> it can be generally omitted.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you but some older patches that I sent that were 
> adding parentheses around the lhs of the assignments were not accepted 
> and I thought that the rhs of the assignments as well these comparisons 
> fall to the same category.
> 
> Personally, I would expect to see parentheses, also, around the macro 
> parameters that are used as the lhs or the rhs of assignments, the 
> operands of comparison or the arguments of a function.
> Not only because they can prevent against unintentional bugs but because 
> the parentheses help me to identify more easily the macro parameters 
> when reading a macro definition. I totally understand that for other 
> people parentheses may reduce readability.

Afair Julien's comments were very specific to the lhs of assignments.
So at the very least everything else ought to be parenthesized imo.

Jan+