Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp1734134pxf; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxL9Lr7q1XT0zQWUxwSMGQETMbzFbHlIMVTvKvbWeSUsmA5nFNLM32Hp2MHQ0mIJnLXnHED X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:50c8:: with SMTP id h8mr11842625edb.360.1616189616199; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1616189616; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GkgFSkUOMCwQEasA1icerAWwDK/e/kGz+NtCZNE5sKQ1CChW4vBdfLFsFvxVMPAonr VNXJx4veCtEi56poKBFdH93RhhleMCrbDpYzqbUzsjHdIZsaF/IWm9/IZ7p86zSx/dGj inNKOwqpEOBMsdzLoZAtM3k0TTU6dksl8GP+MbzI+4ttasOILSQ2gEb63P1Y43p8dOex WcUKu8ADrM8q5D6hSconEQcn1EdZcd5qYNpxinBvbQ+Jt2C8ekBeYMR/E3uQlbyTGe9+ fQdfrbzJjk5P3WnUerREyOje+Glae6+1OrCPxxX0g+5CcSLR6d1f7rTqBfVq5NNcUCi2 YPVg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=hB+f8lX2KwOoI/W1dZagV2Oag+QR07HAAdZYav8Z1HQ=; b=mSsAOa8KJq9sQHqRB/TWCG6C/VmzrkW4kxGEmgbW3SeZxjdj6NOWipKinrPWeW9jb+ D5ORsTI2U4BhpOtyx4REvgrtAc60LhhzEjOSzR6/qnLbnC/1K6tXke6TNSUnaPNsJWab T1XR40/T0HQlodVKk6QP4WEBVbcMAWHy0MnP1i9jXfYW8xx2XlIcjnQJyX50GsaGUpJj umg+0ftwwcbPp+YNDcHqWklccENydg2xEAryAFtv4dV3bfGUiOK7AjCof0HMpzsbFVZS gE8rhLgB6nA4bZ1tD7vNuumNg4DxWVlVCB2w099jRw+RwjVWvSyGjhXltEOH6111IWfu JNkw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g10si5561295edq.430.2021.03.19.14.33.13; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230468AbhCSVbG (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:31:06 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:38020 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230409AbhCSVar (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:30:47 -0400 Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lNMhb-00Bx0T-07; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 22:30:39 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 22:30:38 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Alex Elder Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, evgreen@chromium.org, cpratapa@codeaurora.org, elder@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions Message-ID: References: <20210319042923.1584593-1-elder@linaro.org> <20210319042923.1584593-5-elder@linaro.org> <7068152e-5e1b-94b2-bcb2-c66e622bd127@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7068152e-5e1b-94b2-bcb2-c66e622bd127@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:18:32PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 3/19/21 1:32 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static inline u32 ipa_reg_bcr_val(enum ipa_version version) > > > BCR_HOLB_DROP_L2_IRQ_FMASK | > > > BCR_DUAL_TX_FMASK; > > > - /* assert(version != IPA_VERSION_4_5); */ > > > + ipa_assert(NULL, version != IPA_VERSION_4_5); > > > > Hi Alex > > > > It is impossible to see just looking what the NULL means. And given > > its the first parameter, it should be quite important. I find this API > > pretty bad. > > I actually don't like the first argument. I would have > supplied the main IPA pointer, but that isn't always > visible or available (the GSI code doesn't have the > IPA pointer definition). So I thought instead I could > at least supply the underlying device if available, > and use dev_err(). > > But I wouldn't mind just getting rid of the first > argument and having a failed assertion always call > pr_err() and not dev_err(). > > The thing of most value to me the asserted condition. Hi Alex What you really want to be looking at is adding a WARN_ON_DEV(dev, condition) macro. Andrew