On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:54:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I understand. Semantically it made more sense to me is all, since core
helpers can always end up in config based ifdeffery.
Anyway, I'll update.
Raag
