drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
if CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set,
'drm_dbg' function is replaced with '__dynamic_func_call_cls',
which is replaced with a do while statement.
so in the previous code, there are the following build errors.
include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:221:58: error: expected expression before ‘do’
221 | #define __dynamic_func_call_cls(id, cls, fmt, func, ...) do { \
| ^~
include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:248:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__dynamic_func_call_cls’
248 | __dynamic_func_call_cls(__UNIQUE_ID(ddebug), cls, fmt, func, ##__VA_ARGS__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/drm/drm_print.h:425:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘_dynamic_func_call_cls’
425 | _dynamic_func_call_cls(cat, fmt, __drm_dev_dbg, \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/drm/drm_print.h:504:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dev_dbg’
504 | drm_dev_dbg((drm) ? (drm)->dev : NULL, DRM_UT_DRIVER, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
include/drm/drm_print.h:522:33: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dbg_driver’
522 | #define drm_dbg(drm, fmt, ...) drm_dbg_driver(drm, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h:14:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dbg’
14 | ((cond) && (drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
| ^~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:2029:13: note: in expansion of macro ‘XE_IOCTL_DBG’
2029 | if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, !gem_obj))
the problem is that,
XE_IOCTL_DBG uses this function for conditional expr.
so I fix the expr to be compatible with the do while statement,
by referring to "https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html".
v2: I modified this to print when only cond is true.
Signed-off-by: Gyeyoung Baek <gye976@gmail.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
index daf56c846d03..ac2bd103bb22 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
@@ -11,8 +11,12 @@
#define XE_WARN_ON WARN_ON
#define XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, cond) \
- ((cond) && (drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
- "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
- __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond), 1))
+({ \
+ if ((cond)) \
+ drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
+ "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
+ __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond); \
+ (cond); \
+})
#endif
--
2.34.1
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:48:58PM +0900, Gyeyoung Baek wrote:
>if CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set,
>'drm_dbg' function is replaced with '__dynamic_func_call_cls',
>which is replaced with a do while statement.
>so in the previous code, there are the following build errors.
>
>include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:221:58: error: expected expression before ‘do’
> 221 | #define __dynamic_func_call_cls(id, cls, fmt, func, ...) do { \
> | ^~
>include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:248:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__dynamic_func_call_cls’
> 248 | __dynamic_func_call_cls(__UNIQUE_ID(ddebug), cls, fmt, func, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>include/drm/drm_print.h:425:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘_dynamic_func_call_cls’
> 425 | _dynamic_func_call_cls(cat, fmt, __drm_dev_dbg, \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>include/drm/drm_print.h:504:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dev_dbg’
> 504 | drm_dev_dbg((drm) ? (drm)->dev : NULL, DRM_UT_DRIVER, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
>include/drm/drm_print.h:522:33: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dbg_driver’
> 522 | #define drm_dbg(drm, fmt, ...) drm_dbg_driver(drm, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h:14:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘drm_dbg’
> 14 | ((cond) && (drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
> | ^~~~~~~
>drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:2029:13: note: in expansion of macro ‘XE_IOCTL_DBG’
> 2029 | if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, !gem_obj))
>
>the problem is that,
>XE_IOCTL_DBG uses this function for conditional expr.
>
>so I fix the expr to be compatible with the do while statement,
>by referring to "https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html".
>
>v2: I modified this to print when only cond is true.
>
>Signed-off-by: Gyeyoung Baek <gye976@gmail.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
>index daf56c846d03..ac2bd103bb22 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
>@@ -11,8 +11,12 @@
> #define XE_WARN_ON WARN_ON
>
> #define XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, cond) \
>- ((cond) && (drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
>- "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
>- __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond), 1))
>+({ \
>+ if ((cond)) \
>+ drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
>+ "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
>+ __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond); \
>+ (cond); \
there's a double cond evaluation here and given any expression can be
given to XE_IOCTL_DBG(), this doens't look very safe. I think this would
be safer as:
#define XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, cond) ({ \
int cond__ = !!(cond); \
if (cond__) \
drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
"Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
__FILE__, __LINE__, #cond); \
cond__; \
})
as it then evaluates cond just once. Also the generated code seems to be
sane compared to what we had before too.
And I also needed this to build-test:
| diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
| index 08cfea04e22bd..82585d442f017 100644
| --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
| +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
| @@ -215,9 +215,8 @@ void __drm_printfn_dbg(struct drm_printer *p, struct va_format *vaf)
| {
| const struct drm_device *drm = p->arg;
| const struct device *dev = drm ? drm->dev : NULL;
| - enum drm_debug_category category = p->category;
|
| - if (!__drm_debug_enabled(category))
| + if (!__drm_debug_enabled(p->category))
| return;
|
| __drm_dev_vprintk(dev, KERN_DEBUG, p->origin, p->prefix, vaf);
as otherwise it complains category is unused.
Lucas De Marchi
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h
> >@@ -11,8 +11,12 @@
> > #define XE_WARN_ON WARN_ON
> >
> > #define XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, cond) \
> >- ((cond) && (drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
> >- "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
> >- __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond), 1))
> >+({ \
> >+ if ((cond)) \
> >+ drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
> >+ "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
> >+ __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond); \
> >+ (cond); \
>
> there's a double cond evaluation here and given any expression can be
> given to XE_IOCTL_DBG(), this doens't look very safe. I think this would
> be safer as:
>
> #define XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, cond) ({ \
> int cond__ = !!(cond); \
> if (cond__) \
> drm_dbg(&(xe)->drm, \
> "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \
> __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond); \
> cond__; \
> })
>
> as it then evaluates cond just once. Also the generated code seems to be
> sane compared to what we had before too.
>
Yes, if (cond) has operator like ++, it will be a bug. I miss that...
I will revise a patch again by referring to your review, thanks.
> And I also needed this to build-test:
>
> | diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
> | index 08cfea04e22bd..82585d442f017 100644
> | --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
> | +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c
> | @@ -215,9 +215,8 @@ void __drm_printfn_dbg(struct drm_printer *p, struct va_format *vaf)
> | {
> | const struct drm_device *drm = p->arg;
> | const struct device *dev = drm ? drm->dev : NULL;
> | - enum drm_debug_category category = p->category;
> |
> | - if (!__drm_debug_enabled(category))
> | + if (!__drm_debug_enabled(p->category))
> | return;
> |
> | __drm_dev_vprintk(dev, KERN_DEBUG, p->origin, p->prefix, vaf);
>
> as otherwise it complains category is unused.
>
I also submitted a seperate patch to fix '__drm_debug_enabled' macro,
from '#define __drm_debug_enabled(category) true'
to '#define __drm_debug_enabled(category) ({ void(category); true; })'
This removes the build error caused by the unused 'category', too.
Anyway, it can be build. I tested both cases.
I realize now that these two patches should have been submitted as a
patch series
I'm sorry for my mistakes.
Thanks,
Gyeyoung Baek
> Lucas De Marchi
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.