[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a96c6cb-ed15-4598-8914-2123a8784f36@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:50:53 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@...nix.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Eugenio Pérez
<eperezma@...hat.com>, Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@...nix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/8] virtio: introduce extended features
On 6/8/25 7:49 AM, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2025/06/06 20:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> int (*set_vq_affinity)(struct virtqueue *vq,
>> @@ -149,11 +154,11 @@ static inline bool __virtio_test_bit(const struct virtio_device *vdev,
>> {
>> /* Did you forget to fix assumptions on max features? */
>> if (__builtin_constant_p(fbit))
>> - BUILD_BUG_ON(fbit >= 64);
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(fbit >= VIRTIO_FEATURES_MAX);
>> else
>> - BUG_ON(fbit >= 64);
>> + BUG_ON(fbit >= VIRTIO_FEATURES_MAX);
>
> This check is better to be moved into virtio_features_test_bit().
I leaved the check here mostly unmodified to try to keep the diffstat as
low as possible. I see there is consensus to clean this up, I'll do in
the next revision.
[BTW, I'm sorry for the latency: I'm traveling for the whole week, my
replies will be sparse]
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists