[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIAzEh1Y++os19fl@corigine.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:34:42 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Anirudh Venkataramanan <anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com>,
Sudheer Mogilappagari <sudheer.mogilappagari@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next] ice: clean up __ice_aq_get_set_rss_lut()
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:14:44PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 6/6/23 18:39, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:42:53PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:38:19 +0200
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> > > > > index 6acb40f3c202..af4c8ddcafb0 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> > > > > @@ -3869,6 +3869,30 @@ ice_aq_sff_eeprom(struct ice_hw *hw, u16 lport, u8 bus_addr,
> > > > > return status;
> > > > > }
> > > > > +static enum ice_lut_size ice_lut_type_to_size(enum ice_lut_type type)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + switch (type) {
> > > > > + case ICE_LUT_VSI:
> > > > > + return ICE_LUT_VSI_SIZE;
> > > > > + case ICE_LUT_GLOBAL:
> > > > > + return ICE_LUT_GLOBAL_SIZE;
> > > > > + case ICE_LUT_PF:
> > > > > + return ICE_LUT_PF_SIZE;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Hi Przemek,
> > > >
> > > > I see where you are going here, but gcc-12 W=1 wants a return here.
> > >
> > > So that it can't see that every enumeration entry is handled here? O_o
> >
> > Yes, that seems to be the case :(
>
> it's the same on gcc-13 on default (make M=...) settings, I think, I will
> post next version that is passing that build, even if to make integration
> with new gcc easier
Thanks. TBH it does seem a bit silly to me.
But GCC builds failing does seem to be a problem that warrants being addressed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists