Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] drm: Introduce device wedged event

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:18:33PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:07:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 08:08:18AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:59:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 01:08:41PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:

...

> > > > > +static const char *const drm_wedge_recovery_opts[] = {
> > > > > +	[DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBIND] = "rebind",
> > > > > +	[DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET] = "bus-reset",
> > > > > +	[DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBOOT] = "reboot",
> > > > > +};
> > > > 
> > > > Place for static_assert() is here, as it closer to the actual data we test...
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't it be at the point of access?
> > 
> > No, the idea of static_assert() is in word 'static', meaning it's allowed to be
> > used in the global space.
> > 
> > > If no, why do we care about the data when it's not being used?
> > 
> > What does this suppose to mean? The assertion is for enforcing the boundaries
> > that are defined by different means (constant of the size and real size of
> > an array).
> 
> The point was to simply not assert without an active user of the array, which is
> not the case now but may be possible with growing functionality in the future.

static_assert() is a compile-time check. How is it even related to this?
So, i.o.w., you are contradicting yourself in this code: on one hand you want
compile-time static checker, on the other you do not want it and rely on the
usage of the function.

Possible solutions:
1) remove static_assert() completely;
2) move it as I said.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko