[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1534233405.3547.4.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 09:56:45 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitfield: avoid gcc-8 -Wint-in-bool-context warning
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 08:57 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-08-14 7:09 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> > Passing an enum into FIELD_GET() produces a long but harmless warning on
> > newer compilers:
> >
> > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > from include/linux/kernel.h:7,
> > from include/linux/skbuff.h:17,
> > from include/linux/if_ether.h:23,
> > from include/linux/etherdevice.h:25,
> > from drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/rxmq.c:63:
> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/rxmq.c: In function 'iwl_mvm_rx_mpdu_mq':
> > include/linux/bitfield.h:56:20: error: enum constant in boolean context [-Werror=int-in-bool-context]
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!(_mask), _pfx "mask is zero"); \
> > ^
> > ...
> > include/linux/bitfield.h:103:3: note: in expansion of macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> > __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, 0U, "FIELD_GET: "); \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/rxmq.c:1025:21: note: in expansion of macro 'FIELD_GET'
> > le16_encode_bits(FIELD_GET(IWL_RX_HE_PHY_SIBG_SYM_OR_USER_NUM_MASK,
>
>
> How about fixing the root cause
> in drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/rx.h ?
>
>
> #define IWL_RX_HE_PHY_SIBG_SYM_OR_USER_NUM_MASK 0x1e00000000ULL
>
>
> enum iwl_rx_he_phy looks really strange.
Why? I don't think this is a problem, the enum is used here to get
constants so that we can also have documentation for them. That's a
common and accepted technique.
> Passing enum to FIELD_GET is odd,
> so I prefer keeping this warned.
What for?
I think we should go with Arend's patch, and I hope Andrew will pick it
up, but otherwise I guess we can also put it through any other tree.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists