On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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)
Actually, there's an even better model, which is to just check if a
value fits in a type.
You could do something like
#define FITS(type, value) ((value) == (type)(value))
and then you can just use
if (!FITS(phys_addr_t, base) || !FITS(phys_addr_t, base+size))
instead. The compiler will trivially turn the comparisons into no-ops
if the type is sufficient to hold the value.
We already do this in a few places, it might even be worth it making a
generic macro. People have been confused by the "x == x" kind of
comparisons before, see for example fs/buffer.c:grow_buffers(), which
does
index = block >> sizebits;
if (unlikely(index != block >> sizebits)) {
where "index" is a pgoff_t, but "block >> sizebits" is a sector_t, so
that comparison actually checks that "block >> sizebits" fits in the
type, even though it looks like it compares the same computed value
against itself.
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
