> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Petr 
> Oros
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:41 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: ivecera <[email protected]>; Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>; 
> Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; open list 
> <[email protected]>; Joyner, Eric <[email protected]>; 
> Lobakin, Aleksander <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L 
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Marcin Domagala 
> <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; Paolo Abeni 
> <[email protected]>; David S. Miller <[email protected]>; moderated 
> list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v3] ice: use proper macro for testing 
> bit
>
> Do not use _test_bit() macro for testing bit. The proper macro for this is 
> one without underline.
>
> _test_bit() is what test_bit() was prior to const-optimization. It directly 
> calls arch_test_bit(), i.e. the arch-specific implementation (or the generic 
> one). It's strictly _internal_ and shouldn't be used anywhere outside the 
> actual test_bit() macro.
> 
> test_bit() is a wrapper which checks whether the bitmap and the bit number 
> are compile-time constants and if so, it calls the optimized function which 
> evaluates this call to a compile-time constant as well.
> If either of them is not a compile-time constant, it just calls _test_bit().
> test_bit() is the actual function to use anywhere in the kernel.
>
> IOW, calling _test_bit() avoids potential compile-time optimizations.
>
> The sensors is not a compile-time constant, thus most probably there are no 
> object code changes before and after the patch.
> But anyway, we shouldn't call internal wrappers instead of the actual API.
>
> Fixes: 4da71a77fc3b ("ice: read internal temperature sensor")
> Acked-by: Ivan Vecera <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Oros <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_hwmon.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>

Tested-by: Pucha Himasekhar Reddy <[email protected]> (A 
Contingent worker at Intel)

Reply via email to