[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250117134523.GO6206@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:23 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Xin Tian <tianx@...silicon.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, leon@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
davem@...emloft.net, jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, weihg@...silicon.com,
wanry@...silicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net-next/yunsilicon: Add qp and cq management
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 06:22:51PM +0800, Xin Tian wrote:
> Add qp(queue pair) and cq(completion queue) resource management APIs
>
> Co-developed-by: Honggang Wei <weihg@...silicon.com>
> Signed-off-by: Honggang Wei <weihg@...silicon.com>
> Co-developed-by: Lei Yan <jacky@...silicon.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lei Yan <jacky@...silicon.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Tian <tianx@...silicon.com>
...
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/yunsilicon/xsc/common/xsc_core.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/yunsilicon/xsc/common/xsc_core.h
...
> +// qp
> +struct xsc_send_wqe_ctrl_seg {
> + __le32 msg_opcode:8;
> + __le32 with_immdt:1;
> + __le32 csum_en:2;
> + __le32 ds_data_num:5;
> + __le32 wqe_id:16;
> + __le32 msg_len;
> + union {
> + __le32 opcode_data;
> + struct {
> + u8 has_pph:1;
> + u8 so_type:1;
> + __le16 so_data_size:14;
> + u8:8;
> + u8 so_hdr_len:8;
> + };
> + struct {
> + __le16 desc_id;
> + __le16 is_last_wqe:1;
> + __le16 dst_qp_id:15;
> + };
> + };
> + __le32 se:1;
> + __le32 ce:1;
> + __le32:30;
> +};
> +
> +struct xsc_wqe_data_seg {
> + union {
> + __le32 in_line:1;
> + struct {
> + __le32:1;
> + __le32 seg_len:31;
> + __le32 mkey;
> + __le64 va;
> + };
> + struct {
> + __le32:1;
> + __le32 len:7;
> + u8 in_line_data[15];
> + };
> + };
> +};
Hi Xin Tian,
Sparse seems very unhappy about the combination of __le32 and bitfields
in struct xsc_send_wqe_ctrl_seg and struct xsc_wqe_data_seg.
.../xsc_core.h:87:35: error: invalid bitfield specifier for type restricted __le32.
...
I did not look into this deeply. But, in general, I would suggest using
GET_FIELD and SET_FIELD as an alternative to bitfields.
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists