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?
