On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:49 AM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 1:11 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:13 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:07 PM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:08 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:38:18PM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:15 PM kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Taking the example statement (in my patch) where compilation warning > > > > > > is getting reported: > > > > > > return (map[index] >> offset) & GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0); > > > > > > > > > > > > 'nbits' is of type 'unsigned long'. > > > > > > In above, the sanity check is comparing '0' with unsigned value. And > > > > > > unsigned value can't be less than '0' ever, hence the warning. > > > > > > But this warning will occur whenever there will be '0' as one of the > > > > > > 'argument' and an unsigned variable as another 'argument' for GENMASK. > > > > > > > > Proper fix is to fix GENMASK(), but allowed workaround is to use > > > > > (BIT(nbits) - 1) > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > When I used BIT macro (earlier), I had faced a problem. I want to tell > > > > you about that. > > > > > > > > Inside functions 'bitmap_set_value' and 'bitmap_get_value' when nbits (or > > > > clump size) is BITS_PER_LONG, unexpected calculation happens. > > > > > > > > Explanation: > > > > Actually when nbits (clump size) is 64 (BITS_PER_LONG is 64 on my computer), > > > > (BIT(nbits) - 1) > > > > gives a value of zero and when this zero is ANDed with any value, it > > > > makes it full zero. This is unexpected and incorrect calculation happening. > > > > > > > > What actually happens is in the macro expansion of BIT(64), that is 1 > > > > << 64, the '1' overflows from leftmost bit position (most significant > > > > bit) and re-enters at the rightmost bit position (least significant > > > > bit), therefore 1 << 64 becomes '0x1', and when another '1' is > > > > subtracted from this, the final result becomes 0. > > > > > > > > Since this macro is being used in both bitmap_get_value and > > > > bitmap_set_value functions, it will give unexpected results when nbits or clump > > > > size is BITS_PER_LONG (32 or 64 depending on arch). > > > > > > I see, something like > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/dma-mapping.h#L139 > > > should be done. > > > But yes, let's try to fix GENMASK(). > > > > > > So, if we modify the following > > > > > > #define GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) \ > > > (BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__builtin_choose_expr( \ > > > __builtin_constant_p((l) > (h)), (l) > (h), 0))) > > > > > > to be > > > > > > #define GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) \ > > > (BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__builtin_choose_expr( \ > > > __builtin_constant_p((l) > (h)), (l) ? (l) > (h) : 0, 0))) > > > > > > would it work? > > > > Sorry Andy it is not working. Actually the warning will be thrown, > > whenever there will be comparison between 'h' and 'l'. If one of them > > is '0' and the other is unsigned variable. > > In above, still there is comparison being done between 'h' and 'l', so > > the warning is getting thrown. > > Ah, okay > > what about (l) && ((l) > (h)) ? When I finally changed: __builtin_constant_p((l) > (h)), (l) > (h), 0))) to: __builtin_constant_p((l) && ((l) > (h))), (l) ? (l) > (h) : 0, 0))) It is still throwing same compilation error at the same location where comparison is being done between 'l' and 'h'. Actually the short-circuit logic is not happening. For: (l) && ((l) > (h)) Even if 'l' is zero, it still proceeds to compare 'l' and 'h' , that is '((l) > (h))' is checked. I think it is happening because '__builtin_constant_p' will check the complete argument: (l) && ((l) > (h)), '__builtin_constant_p' checks whether the argument is compile time constant or not, so therefore, it will evaluate the WHOLE argument, that is (including) the comparison operation. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html I am still investigating more on this. Let me know if you have any suggestions. > > > > > William also knows about this issue: > > > > "This is undefined behavior in the C standard (section 6.5.7 in the N1124)" > > > > > > I think it is about 6.5.7.3 here, 1U << 31 (or 63) is okay. > > > > Actually for: > > (BIT(nbits) - 1) > > When nbits will be BITS_PER_LONG it will be 1U << 32 (or 64). Isn't it ? > > The expression, > > BIT(64) - 1 > > can become unexpectedly zero (incorrectly). > > Yes, that's why I pointed out to the paragraph. It's about right > operand to be "great than or equal to" the size of type of left > operand. > Thank You. I understand now. :-) Regards Syed Nayyar Waris
