From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <test-report-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BF246F6F
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:23:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1993F402AB;
	Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:23:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.24.197])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDB2402AB
 for <test-report@dpdk.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:23:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by dpdk.org (Postfix, from userid 65534)
 id 903EE12422E; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:20:41 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: |WARNING| pw156944 [dpdk-dev v1] cryptodev: introduce constant-time
 memory comparison
In-Reply-To: <20250925102223.145471-1-kai.ji@intel.com>
References: <20250925102223.145471-1-kai.ji@intel.com>
To: test-report@dpdk.org
From: checkpatch@dpdk.org
Cc: Kai Ji <kai.ji@intel.com>
Message-Id: <20250925102041.903EE12422E@dpdk.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:20:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-BeenThere: test-report@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: automatic DPDK test reports <test-report.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/test-report>,
 <mailto:test-report-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/>
List-Post: <mailto:test-report@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:test-report-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/test-report>,
 <mailto:test-report-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: test-report-bounces@dpdk.org

Test-Label: checkpatch
Test-Status: WARNING
http://dpdk.org/patch/156944

_coding style issues_


ERROR:COMPLEX_MACRO: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#209: FILE: lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h:95:
+#define rte_consttime_memcmp(a, b, n) __extension__ ({ \
+	const volatile uint8_t *__pa = (const volatile uint8_t *)(a); \
+	const volatile uint8_t *__pb = (const volatile uint8_t *)(b); \
+	uint8_t __result = 0; \
+	for (size_t __i = 0; __i < (n); __i++) \
+		__result |= __pa[__i] ^ __pb[__i]; \
+	__result; \
+})

BUT SEE:

   do {} while (0) advice is over-stated in a few situations:

   The more obvious case is macros, like MODULE_PARM_DESC, invoked at
   file-scope, where C disallows code (it must be in functions).  See
   $exceptions if you have one to add by name.

   More troublesome is declarative macros used at top of new scope,
   like DECLARE_PER_CPU.  These might just compile with a do-while-0
   wrapper, but would be incorrect.  Most of these are handled by
   detecting struct,union,etc declaration primitives in $exceptions.

   Theres also macros called inside an if (block), which "return" an
   expression.  These cannot do-while, and need a ({}) wrapper.

   Enjoy this qualification while we work to improve our heuristics.

WARNING:MISSING_FIXES_TAG: The commit message has 'stable@', perhaps it also needs a 'Fixes:' tag?

total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 93 lines checked