From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] net/ark: PMD for Atomic Rules
 Arkville driver stub
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:42:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4deda4d9-388a-1399-29f7-74a8be2623e2@intel.com>
References: <1490231015-31748-1-git-send-email-ed.czeck@atomicrules.com>
 <0d1c21b6-6163-12f0-cbe4-d23c06a809e9@intel.com>
 <CALZ3GuhCCVPFJ9kqxgnecQTNcf9M9uqVxMN+mOJR5VKckScZwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8625c310-943c-14b5-8215-b1f66bb94bb2@intel.com>
 <CALZ3Guj-vF=-HrvUAt6ohAGgj6Yi5B3E_QE1esgmZTD2+xRZ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Ed Czeck <ed.czeck@atomicrules.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF742C8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:42:38 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CALZ3Guj-vF=-HrvUAt6ohAGgj6Yi5B3E_QE1esgmZTD2+xRZ5w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 3/28/2017 10:11 PM, Ed Czeck wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 3/23/2017 7:46 PM, Ed Czeck wrote:
> 
>     >> > +#define ARK_TRACE_ON(fmt, ...) \
>     >> > +     PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>     >> > +
>     >> > +#define ARK_TRACE_OFF(fmt, ...) \
>     >> > +     do {if (0) PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
>     >> why not just "do { } while(0)" ?
>     >
>     > A do while body always executes at least once.  The if (0) is required.
> 
>     Are you sure about this?
> 
>     I believe "do { } while(0)" also removed completely during compile.
> 
> I verified that the if (0) is required.

I have seen a comment added in next version:

/* This pattern allows compiler check arguments even if disabled  */

This clarifies the usage, and if(0), thanks.