On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:38:22 -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski 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. > > Do you mean the current nfp_eth_set_bit_config() will not work with -O0 > on either complier, or any use of __BF_FIELD_CHECK() will not compile > with -O0?
Any use of __BF_FIELD_CHECK. The code will compile but not link since calls to ____compiletime_assert_xxx (added by compiletime_assert macro) will not be removed in -O0. Thanks, Manoj
