On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Can you pull this bug fix into your tree please?
I took it, but I think both your explanation and the patch itself is
actually crap. It may fix the issue, but it's seriously confused.
Your explanation says that it's a 32-bit platform issue. No it's not.
Most 32-bit configurations still have a 64-bit phys_addr_t (ie
PAE/LPAE etc).
And the code is crap, because it uses ULONG_MAX etc in ways that
simply make no f*cking sense. And why does it care about sizeof?
Why does the code not just do something like
#define MAX_PHYS_ADDR ((phys_addr_t) ~0)
and then do
if (base > MAX_PHYS_ADDR || base + size > MAX_PHYS_ADDR)
...
and be done with it? All those sizeof tests are completely pointless.
If it turns out that phys_addr_t is the same size as u64, then the
tests will never be true, and the compiler will happily optimize them
away.
So I think this fixes a problem, but it's all ugly as hell. I ended up
pulling it because I'm lazy and don't have a machine to test a proper
fix on anyway, but I hope this can get cleaned up. And more
importantly, I hope maintainers will spend a bit more time thinking
about things like this. It's not just that the code is unnecessarily
complex, it's WRONG. Comparing things to "ULONG_MAX" makes absolutely
zero sense, since "ULONG_MAX" has nothing to do with anything. It's
just stupid and misleading, and it just so happens to work by random
luck because it so *happens* that phys_addr_t is smaller than "u64"
only when ULONG_MAX happens to be the same size. But even that is not
guaranteed (ie some stupid broken architecture might have a 32-bit
physical address space despite having a 64-bit "long")
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
