On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:07:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 08:08:18AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:59:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 01:08:41PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +static const char *const drm_wedge_recovery_opts[] = {
> > > > + [DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBIND] = "rebind",
> > > > + [DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET] = "bus-reset",
> > > > + [DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBOOT] = "reboot",
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Place for static_assert() is here, as it closer to the actual data we
> > > test...
> >
> > Shouldn't it be at the point of access?
>
> No, the idea of static_assert() is in word 'static', meaning it's allowed to
> be
> used in the global space.
>
> > If no, why do we care about the data when it's not being used?
>
> What does this suppose to mean? The assertion is for enforcing the boundaries
> that are defined by different means (constant of the size and real size of
> an array).
The point was to simply not assert without an active user of the array, which is
not the case now but may be possible with growing functionality in the future.
Raag
