On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:18:33PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> 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.
static_assert() is a compile-time check. How is it even related to this?
So, i.o.w., you are contradicting yourself in this code: on one hand you want
compile-time static checker, on the other you do not want it and rely on the
usage of the function.
Possible solutions:
1) remove static_assert() completely;
2) move it as I said.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
