On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Raag Jadav <raag.ja...@intel.com> wrote:
>> @@ -70,6 +73,16 @@ static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;
>>
>> DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(drm_unplug_srcu);
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Available recovery methods for wedged device. To be sent along with
>> device
>> + * wedged uevent.
>> + */
>> +static const char *const drm_wedge_recovery_opts[] = {
>> + [ffs(DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBIND) - 1] = "rebind",
>> + [ffs(DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET) - 1] = "bus-reset",
>> +};
>> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(drm_wedge_recovery_opts) ==
>> ffs(DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET));
>
> This might work in most cases, but you also might end up finding that
> there's an arch and compiler combo out there that just won't be able to
> figure out ffs() at compile time, and the array initialization fails.
And the kernel test robot hits exactly this.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
