On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:16:49 -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > Thanks for the suggestion. This seems a viable alternative if David > > > and the NFP owners can live without the extra checking provided by > > > __BF_FIELD_CHECK. > > > > The reason the __BF_FIELD_CHECK refuses to compile non-constant masks > > is that it will require runtime ffs on the mask, which is potentially > > costly. I would also feel quite stupid adding those macros to the nfp > > driver, given that I specifically created the bitfield.h header to not > > have to reimplement these in every driver I write/maintain. > > That make sense, thanks for providing more context. > > > Can you please test the patch I provided in the other reply? > > With this patch there are no errors when building the kernel with > clang.
Cool, thanks for checking! I will run it through full tests and queue for upstreaming :)
