[PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Tom Herbert]

I am hitting this in mlx5:

drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c: In function
‘reclaim_pages_cmd.clone.0’:
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c:346: error: call
to ‘__compiletime_assert_346’ declared with attribute error:
BUILD_BUG_ON failed: __mlx5_bit_off(manage_pages_out, pas[i]) % 64
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c: In function ‘give_pages’:
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c:291: error: call
to ‘__compiletime_assert_291’ declared with attribute error:
BUILD_BUG_ON failed: __mlx5_bit_off(manage_pages_in, pas[i]) % 64

Problem is that this is doing a BUILD_BUG_ON on a non-constant
expression because of trying to take offset of pas[i] in the
structure.

Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.

Fixes: a533ed5e179cd ("net/mlx5: Pages management commands via mlx5 ifc")
Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c |  5 +++--
 include/linux/mlx5/device.h                         | 13 +++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
index d458515..5ef5ae2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ retry:
 
 			goto retry;
 		}
-		MLX5_SET64(manage_pages_in, in, pas[i], addr);
+		MLX5_SET64_VCHK(manage_pages_in, in, pas[i], pas[0], addr);
 	}
 
 	MLX5_SET(manage_pages_in, in, opcode, MLX5_CMD_OP_MANAGE_PAGES);
@@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ static int reclaim_pages_cmd(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
 		if (fwp->func_id != func_id)
 			continue;
 
-		MLX5_SET64(manage_pages_out, out, pas[i], fwp->addr);
+		MLX5_SET64_VCHK(manage_pages_out, out, pas[i], pas[0],
+				fwp->addr);
 		i++;
 	}
 
diff --git a/include/linux/mlx5/device.h b/include/linux/mlx5/device.h
index 77c1417..943eb18 100644
--- a/include/linux/mlx5/device.h
+++ b/include/linux/mlx5/device.h
@@ -92,12 +92,21 @@ __mlx5_mask(typ, fld))
 	___t; \
 })
 
-#define MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) do { \
+#define __MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) do { \
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_sz(typ, fld) != 64); \
-	BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
 	*((__be64 *)(p) + __mlx5_64_off(typ, fld)) = cpu_to_be64(v); \
 } while (0)
 
+#define MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) do { \
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
+	__MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v); \
+} while (0)
+
+#define MLX5_SET64_VCHK(typ, p, fld, const_fld, v) do { \
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, const_fld) % 64); \
+	__MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v); \
+} while (0)
+
 #define MLX5_GET64(typ, p, fld) be64_to_cpu(*((__be64 *)(p) + __mlx5_64_off(typ, fld)))
 
 #define MLX5_GET64_PR(typ, p, fld) ({ \
-- 
2.9.3

Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Saeed Mahameed]

On 10/11/2016 01:22 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> I am hitting this in mlx5:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c: In function
> ‘reclaim_pages_cmd.clone.0’:
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c:346: error: call
> to ‘__compiletime_assert_346’ declared with attribute error:
> BUILD_BUG_ON failed: __mlx5_bit_off(manage_pages_out, pas[i]) % 64
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c: In function ‘give_pages’:
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c:291: error: call
> to ‘__compiletime_assert_291’ declared with attribute error:
> BUILD_BUG_ON failed: __mlx5_bit_off(manage_pages_in, pas[i]) % 64
>
> Problem is that this is doing a BUILD_BUG_ON on a non-constant
> expression because of trying to take offset of pas[i] in the
> structure.
>
> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.
>
> Fixes: a533ed5e179cd ("net/mlx5: Pages management commands via mlx5 ifc")
> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>

Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>

RE: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[David Laight]

From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: 11 October 2016 05:22
...
> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.

I think I'd separate the array index instead.
Something like:

#define MLX5_SET64_INDEXED(typ, p, fld, ndx, v) do { \
	BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
	__MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld[ndx], v); \
} while (0)

	David

Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Saeed Mahameed]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:50 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert
>> Sent: 11 October 2016 05:22
> ...
>> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
>> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
>> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
>> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.
>
> I think I'd separate the array index instead.
> Something like:
>
> #define MLX5_SET64_INDEXED(typ, p, fld, ndx, v) do { \
>         BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
>         __MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld[ndx], v); \
> } while (0)
>
>         David

Yes, I think this looks more natural, but instead MLX5_SET64_INDEXED,
I prefer to have 2 macros
MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) and MLX5_ARRAY_SET64(typ, p, fld, idx, v).

Tom, do you want me to fix it ?

Thanks,
Saeed.

Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Tom Herbert]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Saeed Mahameed
<saeedm@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:50 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert
>>> Sent: 11 October 2016 05:22
>> ...
>>> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
>>> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
>>> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
>>> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.
>>
>> I think I'd separate the array index instead.
>> Something like:
>>
>> #define MLX5_SET64_INDEXED(typ, p, fld, ndx, v) do { \
>>         BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
>>         __MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld[ndx], v); \
>> } while (0)
>>
>>         David
>
> Yes, I think this looks more natural, but instead MLX5_SET64_INDEXED,
> I prefer to have 2 macros
> MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) and MLX5_ARRAY_SET64(typ, p, fld, idx, v).
>
> Tom, do you want me to fix it ?
>
Please do.

> Thanks,
> Saeed.

Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1261 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:46:45AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Saeed Mahameed
> <saeedm@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:50 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> >> From: Tom Herbert
> >>> Sent: 11 October 2016 05:22
> >> ...
> >>> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
> >>> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
> >>> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
> >>> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.
> >>
> >> I think I'd separate the array index instead.
> >> Something like:
> >>
> >> #define MLX5_SET64_INDEXED(typ, p, fld, ndx, v) do { \
> >>         BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
> >>         __MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld[ndx], v); \
> >> } while (0)
> >>
> >>         David
> >
> > Yes, I think this looks more natural, but instead MLX5_SET64_INDEXED,
> > I prefer to have 2 macros
> > MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) and MLX5_ARRAY_SET64(typ, p, fld, idx, v).
> >
> > Tom, do you want me to fix it ?
> >
> Please do.

Saeed,

Do you success to send this patch before -rc1 is released? So Linus's
-rc1 will be clean from such build error.

>
> > Thanks,
> > Saeed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: Add MLX5_SET64_VCHK to fix BUILD_BUG_ON

[Saeed Mahameed]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:46:45AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Saeed Mahameed
>> <saeedm@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:50 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>> >> From: Tom Herbert
>> >>> Sent: 11 October 2016 05:22
>> >> ...
>> >>> Fix is to create MLX5_SET64_VCHK that takes an additional argument
>> >>> that is a constant. There are two callers of MLX5_SET64 that are
>> >>> trying to get a variable offset, change those to call MLX5_SET64_VCHK
>> >>> passing pas[0] as the argument to use in the offset check.
>> >>
>> >> I think I'd separate the array index instead.
>> >> Something like:
>> >>
>> >> #define MLX5_SET64_INDEXED(typ, p, fld, ndx, v) do { \
>> >>         BUILD_BUG_ON(__mlx5_bit_off(typ, fld) % 64); \
>> >>         __MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld[ndx], v); \
>> >> } while (0)
>> >>
>> >>         David
>> >
>> > Yes, I think this looks more natural, but instead MLX5_SET64_INDEXED,
>> > I prefer to have 2 macros
>> > MLX5_SET64(typ, p, fld, v) and MLX5_ARRAY_SET64(typ, p, fld, idx, v).
>> >
>> > Tom, do you want me to fix it ?
>> >
>> Please do.
>
> Saeed,
>
> Do you success to send this patch before -rc1 is released? So Linus's
> -rc1 will be clean from such build error.
>

Just submitted the patch, it seems that i have issues with my other
Mailer, sometimes e-mails take a while to appear in the mailing list.
I Hope the patch will arrive on time for Dave to pick it it up.

Thanks,
-Saeed.