Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v1] ice: move static_assert to declaration section

[Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>]

On 12/5/2024 2:18 PM, Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/4/2024 4:05 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
>> Dear Mateusz,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> Am 04.12.24 um 16:02 schrieb Mateusz Polchlopek:
>>> static_assert() needs to be placed in the declaration section,
>>> so move it there in ice_cfg_tx_topo() function.
>>>
>>> Current code causes following warnings on some gcc versions:
>>
>> Please list the versions you know of.
>>
> 
> Sure, in next version I will add the info.
> 
>>> error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
>>> [-Werror=declaration-after-statement]
>>
>> The above could be in one line, as it’s pasted.
>>
> 
> Okay, it will be fixed in v2
> 
>>> Fixes: c188afdc3611 ("ice: fix memleak in ice_init_tx_topology()")
>>> Reviewed-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c | 3 ++-
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c b/drivers/net/ 
>>> ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> index 69d5b1a28491..e885f84520ba 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> @@ -2388,6 +2388,8 @@ int ice_cfg_tx_topo(struct ice_hw *hw, const 
>>> void *buf, u32 len)
>>>       int status;
>>>       u8 flags;
>>> +    static_assert(ICE_PKG_BUF_SIZE == ICE_AQ_MAX_BUF_LEN);
>>> +
>>>       if (!buf || !len)
>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>> @@ -2482,7 +2484,6 @@ int ice_cfg_tx_topo(struct ice_hw *hw, const 
>>> void *buf, u32 len)
>>>       }
>>>       /* Get the new topology buffer, reuse current topo copy mem */
>>> -    static_assert(ICE_PKG_BUF_SIZE == ICE_AQ_MAX_BUF_LEN);
>>>       new_topo = topo;
>>>       memcpy(new_topo, (u8 *)section + offset, size);
>>
>> The diff looks good.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Paul
> 
> Thanks Paul for review!
> 
> BR
> 
> 

Ach... It occurred that this is not the problem with compiler version
but with re-introduction of the -Wdeclaration-after-statement flag in
my test setup :/

Nevertheless this move of static_assert is still considered as a good
practice, so I will send v2 to the net-next with some other polishing
of code as an improvement (and I will drop Fixes: tag).