Re: [PATCH] nfp: convert nfp_eth_set_bit_config() into a macro

[Matthias Kaehlcke]

El Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 07:13:26PM -0700 Manoj Gupta ha dit:

> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:50:04 -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jakub Kicinski 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.
> >
> > Why would that be, it's just a macro?  Does it by extension mean any
> > use of BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG() will not compile with -O0?
> 
> You have to look at the the code added once the macro is expanded :).
> Please look at implementation of compiletime_assert at
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.12.14/source/include/linux/compiler.h#L507
> It creates a call to __compiler_assert_xxx inside a loop which is not
> cleaned up in -O0.

I just saw that v4.14 will have a fix for that:

commit c03567a8e8d5cf2aaca40e605c48f319dc2ead57
Author: Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Aug 31 16:15:33 2017 -0700

include/linux/compiler.h: don't perform compiletime_assert with -O0


Obviously this means that the checks aren't performed, however that
shouldn't be an issue since AFAIK the kernel doesn't officially
support -O0 builds in the first place.