Why not use powerof2() macro from sys/param.h?

In D33725#762451, @kib wrote:

Why not use powerof2() macro from sys/param.h?

I am not confident that wherever this header is included, sys/param.h will have been included before it. Maybe you can reassure me of that.

Lately, I've found that the advice I get on header files sometimes leads me to commit things that don't compile on some architectures, because something that is included where I build isn't included for others. I don't want to repeat that mistake with this.

In D33725#762484, @dougm wrote:

In D33725#762451, @kib wrote:

Why not use powerof2() macro from sys/param.h?

I am not confident that wherever this header is included, sys/param.h will have been included before it. Maybe you can reassure me of that.

Lately, I've found that the advice I get on header files sometimes leads me to commit things that don't compile on some architectures, because something that is included where I build isn't included for others. I don't want to repeat that mistake with this.

IMO not using sys/param.h macros would reinforce the behavior you fixed with vm_addr*() inlines, but for different case. You hand-expanded the code.

If you want, I can run make tinderbox for your patch with powerof2.

In D33725#762501, @dougm wrote:

Fix a bunch of mistakes I should not have made, and use "%#" for the first time.

It is almost fine except that ';' are missed at the end of panic() calls. Below is the verbatim patch that passed tinderbox:

diff --git a/sys/vm/vm_extern.h b/sys/vm/vm_extern.h
index 4e03bba66ee..9fac3403f78 100644
--- a/sys/vm/vm_extern.h
+++ b/sys/vm/vm_extern.h
@@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ u_int vm_wait_count(void);
 static inline bool
 vm_addr_align_ok(vm_paddr_t pa, u_long alignment)
 {
+#ifdef INVARIANTS
+	if (!powerof2(alignment))
+		panic("%s: alignment is not a power of 2: %#lx",
+		    __func__, alignment);
+#endif
 	return ((pa & (alignment - 1)) == 0);
 }
 
@@ -150,6 +155,11 @@ vm_addr_align_ok(vm_paddr_t pa, u_long alignment)
 static inline bool
 vm_addr_bound_ok(vm_paddr_t pa, vm_paddr_t size, vm_paddr_t boundary)
 {
+#ifdef INVARIANTS
+	if (!powerof2(boundary))
+		panic("%s: boundary is not a power of 2: %#jx",
+		    __func__, (uintmax_t)boundary);
+#endif
 	return (((pa ^ (pa + size - 1)) & -boundary) == 0);
 }
 

Nevermind. The boundary rewrite would break the boundary == 0 case.

Make tinderbox completed with just these errors:
powerpc.powerpc64: make[6]: "/freebsd/dougm/base/src/stand/kboot/Makefile" line 27: Cannot open /fr
eebsd/dougm/base/src/stand/kboot/arch/powerpc/Makefile.inc

i386 LINT-NOIP:
ld: error: undefined symbol: tcp_lro_flush_all

referenced by lio_droq.c

lio_droq.o:(lio_droq_process_packets)

ld: error: undefined symbol: tcp_lro_rx

referenced by lio_core.c

lio_core.o:(lio_push_packet)

ld: error: undefined symbol: tcp_lro_init

referenced by lio_main.c

lio_main.o:(lio_attach)

ld: error: undefined symbol: tcp_lro_free

referenced by lio_main.c

lio_main.o:(lio_attach)

referenced by lio_main.c

lio_main.o:(lio_destroy_nic_device)

I don't think either of these problems is associated with my changes.

I plan to either commit or discard this change within a couple of days. Please let me know how to proceed.