On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, "Nilawar, Badal" <badal.nilawar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 21-09-2023 21:33, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 03:55:14PM +0530, Badal Nilawar wrote: >>> Add XE_MISSING_CASE macro to handle missing switch case >>> >>> v2: Add comment about macro usage (Himal) >>> >>> Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h | 4 ++++ >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h >>> index daf56c846d03..6c74c69920ed 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_macros.h >>> @@ -15,4 +15,8 @@ >>> "Ioctl argument check failed at %s:%d: %s", \ >>> __FILE__, __LINE__, #cond), 1)) >>> >>> +/* Parameter to macro should be a variable name */ >>> +#define XE_MISSING_CASE(x) WARN(1, "Missing case (%s == %ld)\n", \ >>> + __stringify(x), (long)(x)) >>> + >> >> No, please! Let's not add unnecessary macros. > This was suggested by Andy, in fact he suggested to reuse existing > MISSING_CASE macro from i915. As I couldn't find common place to move it > I went with creating new one. > > I will drop this patch and simply use drm_warn. Please use drm_WARN() or drm_WARN_ON(). With panic_on_warn=1 in CI, it'll oops the machine, and we'll actually catch these as opposed to just leaving them as lines in dmesg. I guess the main purpose of MISSING_CASE() in i915 was to unify the behaviour, though I think that was also misused. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > Badal >> >>> #endif >>> -- >>> 2.25.1 >>> -- Jani Nikula, Intel
