> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:28 AM > > 27/04/2020 16:00, David Marchand: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:47 PM Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Marchand > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:34 PM Bruce Richardson > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:23:41PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > > Building OVS with dpdk, sparse complains about 64-bit > constant being > > > > > > passed as a normal integer that can't fit it: > > > > > > error: constant 0xffffffffffffffff is so big it is unsigned > long > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: ecbc8570131d ("ethdev: add PFCP header to flow API") > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > > > static const struct rte_flow_item_pfcp > rte_flow_item_pfcp_mask = { > > > > > > .s_field = 0x01, > > > > > > - .seid = RTE_BE64(0xffffffffffffffff), > > > > > > + .seid = RTE_BE64(UINT64_C(0xffffffffffffffff)), > > > > > > > > > > Rather than cast, why not put "ULL" at the end. If we are going > to cast, > > > > > why not just put "-1" in to save some digits. > > > > > > > > I preferred this form in the hope future developers who want > > > > 0x0fffffffffffffff will copy/paste this. > > > > > > > > > > As I remember there should be UINT64_MAX in stdint.h. > > > > Yes, we could go with: > > + .seid = RTE_BE64(UINT64_MAX), > > > > And then next time, for any value like 0x0fff ffff ffff ffff (had to > > group the digits of what I had written), pretty sure we will miss > this > > and I will catch it only when building ovs. > > I agree with David (in general and especially here). > > RTE_BE64 is required for static analyzers and is an explicit info. > > UINT64_C is better than ULL suffix because it > - is generic > - gives size explicitly
Certainly. Explicit is preferred in code for embedded systems. "unsigned long long" means 64 bit or more, which also applies to the "ULL" postfix. "uint64_t" and "UINT64_C" means exactly 64 bit. > > UINT64_C(0xffffffffffffffff) is better than UINT64_MAX because > - rte_flow.h has a lot of bitmasks > - it is copy/paste safe > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > And shouldn't the struct rte_flow_item_pfcp be packed? I would expect the compiler to add 32 bit padding before seid to ensure its 64 bit alignment. Med venlig hilsen / kind regards - Morten Brørup
