From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41A137AF for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:38:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so113785446wid.0 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jTQIO06uskmhBV5OFbhHDazLTHWu70zirF5dIqB28rY=; b=ZpDfDE9Aw5YRT0DRgwGM/ed8hlClIadvU2N6iTLaJf7JvhMQXBQnS5X7h86hOJ0I5K eHv9pbhZ87J0jMtfTIvKbwOEYuEthFfb/Fy8boeXtJ4zqxRkaApBMlj3UELLxJmGqCP9 Lb9Vas3lQO95TuLsEkDnwciU44b7JNmHuj6m9fpEDTaG28nY3tGE7tv7FvrTLIo6OK0f 8yGnhRP77Wpaal3EXk6xyqzQiLYaheUsSFfQ7RazsfbQd8eqkhqcRTLnPNv9QOQNC4Zo VGe98zeM//YAQr9MFwbcIq0s2zXt4z4Fhf+5lRi8f2ro6/IwUkQ52qSukstYzs9Jt+kl /+4g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnszPz4UMCw81BHXUz/vnNHd3rc47sYlQRjRjUedIg/IjqMsv1TDTWO0eeywaJlm0Ybpofo X-Received: by 10.180.14.135 with SMTP id p7mr32416293wic.8.1429018731914; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.166] ([212.143.139.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i10sm1615146wja.40.2015.04.14.06.38.50 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <552D1869.4060703@cloudius-systems.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:38:49 +0300 From: Vlad Zolotarov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon , "Zhang, Helin" References: <1429003900-20074-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <552D0CA2.9080905@cloudius-systems.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582141570C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582141570C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ixgbe: fix build with gcc 4.4 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:38:52 -0000 On 04/14/15 16:06, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:49 PM >> To: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin; Zhang, Helin >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: fix build with gcc 4.4 >> >> >> >> On 04/14/15 12:31, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> With GCC 4.4.7 from CentOS 6.5, the following errors arise: >>> >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c: In function ‘ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup’: >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:2509: error: missing initializer >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:2509: error: (near initialization for ‘dev_info.driver_name’) >>> >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c: In function ‘ixgbe_set_rsc’: >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:4072: error: missing initializer >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:4072: error: (near initialization for ‘dev_info.driver_name’) >>> >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c: In function ‘ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro_single_alloc’: >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:1479: error: ‘next_rsc_entry’ may be used uninitialized in this function >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:1480: error: ‘next_rxe’ may be used uninitialized in this function >>> >>> Fixes: 8eecb3295aed ("ixgbe: add LRO support") >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon >>> --- >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 8 ++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c >>> index f1da9ec..a2b8631 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c >>> @@ -1476,8 +1476,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts, >>> bool eop; >>> struct ixgbe_rx_entry *rxe; >>> struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *rsc_entry; >>> - struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *next_rsc_entry; >>> - struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe; >>> + struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *next_rsc_entry = NULL; >>> + struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe = NULL; >>> struct rte_mbuf *first_seg; >>> struct rte_mbuf *rxm; >>> struct rte_mbuf *nmb; >>> @@ -2506,7 +2506,7 @@ ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, >>> struct ixgbe_rx_queue *rxq; >>> struct ixgbe_hw *hw; >>> uint16_t len; >>> - struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info = { 0 }; >>> + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info = { .max_rx_queues = 0 }; >>> struct rte_eth_rxmode *dev_rx_mode = &dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode; >>> bool rsc_requested = false; >>> >>> @@ -4069,7 +4069,7 @@ ixgbe_set_rsc(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) >>> { >>> struct rte_eth_rxmode *rx_conf = &dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode; >>> struct ixgbe_hw *hw = IXGBE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private); >>> - struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info = { 0 }; >>> + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info = { .max_rx_queues = 0 }; >> Hmmm... Unless I miss something this and one above would zero only a >> single field - "max_rx_queues"; and would leave the rest uninitialized. >> The original code intend to zero the whole struct. The alternative to >> the original lines could be usage of memset(). > As I understand, in that case compiler had to set all non-explicitly initialised members to 0. > So I think we are ok here. Yeah, I guess it does zero-initializes the rest (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Designated-Inits.html) however I don't understand how the above change fixes the error if it complains about the dev_info.driver_name? What I'm trying to say - the proposed fix is completely unclear and confusing. Think of somebody reading this line in a month from today - he wouldn't get a clue why is it there, why to explicitly set max_rx_queues to zero and leave the rest be zeroed automatically... Why to add such artifacts to the code instead of just zeroing the struct with a memset() and putting a good clear comment above it explaining why we use a memset() and not and initializer? > >>> bool rsc_capable = false; >>> uint16_t i; >>> uint32_t rdrxctl;