[Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: ks7010: Unnecessary parentheses are removed.

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 19:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 23:56 +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> > > Unnecessary parentheses should be avoided as reported by checkpatch.pl.
> > > Remove unnecessary parentheses, as reported by checkpatch as are nicer
> > > to read.For example:-
> > > It's often nicer to read if &(foo[0]) is converted to foo like:
> > >      memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN);
> > >      memcpy(ap->bssid, ap_info->bssid, ETH_ALEN);
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
> > []
> > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ int get_ap_information(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, struct ap_info_t *ap_info,
> > >  	memset(ap, 0, sizeof(struct local_ap_t));
> > > 
> > >  	/* bssid */
> > > -	memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN);
> > > +	memcpy(&ap->bssid[0], &ap_info->bssid[0], ETH_ALEN);
> > 
> > This code doesn't match the suggested style of
> > your commit message.
> 
> Is what is suggested in the commit message correct?  That is, is the 0th
> element of an array always at the same address as a pointer to the array
> itself?

I think your wording is a little fuzzy.

Assuming you mean not a pointer to the array,
but the array itself, yes.