lvm2 fails to build with -Wparentheses

[jcai19]

libdm/libdm-deptree.c fails to build with -Wparentheses on Chrome OS and produces the following error,

lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2467:81: warning: operator '?:' has lower precedence than '+'; '+' will be evaluated first [-Wparentheses]
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: EMIT_PARAMS(pos, " %u", (seg->policy_argc + (seg->migration_threshold != 2048) ? 1 : 0) * 2);
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2037:59: note: expanded from macro 'EMIT_PARAMS'
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: if ((w = dm_snprintf(params + p, paramsize - (size_t) p, str)) < 0) {
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ^~~
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2467:81: note: place parentheses around the '+' expression to silence this warning
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: EMIT_PARAMS(pos, " %u", (seg->policy_argc + (seg->migration_threshold != 2048) ? 1 : 0) * 2);
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2037:59: note: expanded from macro 'EMIT_PARAMS'
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: if ((w = dm_snprintf(params + p, paramsize - (size_t) p, str)) < 0) {
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ^~~
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2467:81: note: place parentheses around the '?:' expression to evaluate it first
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: EMIT_PARAMS(pos, " %u", (seg->policy_argc + (seg->migration_threshold != 2048) ? 1 : 0) * 2);
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: libdm-deptree.c:2037:59: note: expanded from macro 'EMIT_PARAMS'
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: if ((w = dm_snprintf(params + p, paramsize - (size_t) p, str)) < 0) {
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: ^~~
lvm2-2.02.187-r3: 1 warning generated.

More details can be found at https://b.corp.google.com/issues/195062447.

[jcai19]

The code of interest was introduced in 74ae1c5.

[jcai19]

I've created a pull request at #56.

[zkabelac]

Solved upstream with few more patches as can be seen in this BZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2004215

As the standalone parentheses fix would cause actually way more troubles to the users - since the error path on incorrect cache settings is way more easier to hit.