Hi Jakub, On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:16:49 -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >> > > Thanks for the suggestion. This seems a viable alternative if David >> > > and the NFP owners can live without the extra checking provided by >> > > __BF_FIELD_CHECK. >> > >> > The reason the __BF_FIELD_CHECK refuses to compile non-constant masks >> > is that it will require runtime ffs on the mask, which is potentially >> > costly. I would also feel quite stupid adding those macros to the nfp >> > driver, given that I specifically created the bitfield.h header to not >> > have to reimplement these in every driver I write/maintain. >> >> That make sense, thanks for providing more context. >> >> > Can you please test the patch I provided in the other reply? >> >> With this patch there are no errors when building the kernel with >> clang. > > Cool, thanks for checking! I will run it through full tests and queue > for upstreaming :)
Just to let you know, using __BF_FIELD_CHECK macro will not Link with -O0 (GCC or Clang) since references to __compiletime_assert_xxx will not be cleaned up. Thanks, Manoj
