Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] ethdev: fix build warning on 64-bit value

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/27/2020 3:00 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:47 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Marchand
>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 2:37 PM
>>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>>> Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Yigit, Ferruh
>>> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>; Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zhang@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] ethdev: fix build warning on 64-bit value
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:34 PM Bruce Richardson
>>> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:23:41PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
>>>>> Building OVS with dpdk, sparse complains about 64-bit constant being
>>>>> passed as a normal integer that can't fit it:
>>>>> error: constant 0xffffffffffffffff is so big it is unsigned long
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: ecbc8570131d ("ethdev: add PFCP header to flow API")
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> index 132b44edc6..1fb94f35e8 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> @@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ struct rte_flow_item_pfcp {
>>>>>  #ifndef __cplusplus
>>>>>  static const struct rte_flow_item_pfcp rte_flow_item_pfcp_mask = {
>>>>>       .s_field = 0x01,
>>>>> -     .seid = RTE_BE64(0xffffffffffffffff),
>>>>> +     .seid = RTE_BE64(UINT64_C(0xffffffffffffffff)),
>>>>
>>>> Rather than cast, why not put "ULL" at the end. If we are going to cast,
>>>> why not just put "-1" in to save some digits.
>>>
>>> I preferred this form in the hope future developers who want
>>> 0x0fffffffffffffff will copy/paste this.
>>>
>>
>> As I remember there should be UINT64_MAX in stdint.h.
> 
> Yes, we could go with:
> +     .seid = RTE_BE64(UINT64_MAX),

This is something else but if the value is 'UINT64_MAX', do we need 'RTE_BE64'
macro?

> 
> And then next time, for any value like 0x0fff ffff ffff ffff (had to
> group the digits of what I had written), pretty sure we will miss this
> and I will catch it only when building ovs.
> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand
>