From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Jerin Jacob" <jerinj@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] eventdev: ensure 16-byte alignment for events
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 15:31:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231112153146.5fdd72b8@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F016@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 09:30:24 +0100
Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> > > +static_assert(sizeof(struct rte_event) == 16, "Event structure size
> > is not 16-bytes in size");
> > > +
> > > static struct rte_eventdev rte_event_devices[RTE_EVENT_MAX_DEVS];
> >
> > Please don't reinvent RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON().
> > Instead fix that to be a static_assert()
>
> I would say the opposite:
> With our upgrade to the C11 standard, let's get rid of the RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() workaround for the lack of static_assert() in older C standards.
>
> Unfortunately, the static_assert(expression) variant without the "message" parameter, which would make our RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() macro completely obsolete, requires C23. And I don't see how we can make this variant available with C11. So we probably have to wait until DPDK requires C23.
>
> Until then, let's gradually phase out the DPDK-specific RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() in favor of standard C's static_assert(), and live with the inconvenience of having to provide a message parameter for it.
>
> Please also note that static_assert() can be used outside code blocks, which makes it handy for use in header files.
If you look at my RFC, the message is just as good as the one in this code.
It ends up being stringified version of the expression. Which is more exact than the wording used in some other places.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-12 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-05 11:51 [RFC PATCH] " Bruce Richardson
2023-10-05 12:06 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-05 13:11 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-10-05 13:15 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 7:19 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-10-05 12:12 ` Morten Brørup
2023-10-05 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 9:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 9:45 ` [PATCH v3] " Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 10:13 ` Morten Brørup
2023-10-06 10:16 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-10-06 10:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 10:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-10-06 10:27 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 10:16 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 10:35 ` Morten Brørup
2023-10-06 10:44 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 10:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Bruce Richardson
2023-11-12 0:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-11-12 8:30 ` Morten Brørup
2023-11-12 23:31 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2023-11-13 7:58 ` Morten Brørup
2024-01-19 21:05 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-10-06 12:15 ` [RFC PATCH] " Mattias Rönnblom
2023-10-06 12:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-10-06 12:29 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-19 22:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20231112153146.5fdd72b8@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).