On 16/03/2021 02.54, Yury Norov wrote: > GENMASK(h, l) may be passed with unsigned types. In such case, type-limits > warning is generated for example in case of GENMASK(h, 0). > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/scripts/Makefile.include | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/tools/scripts/Makefile.include b/tools/scripts/Makefile.include > index 84dbf61a7eca..15e99905cb7d 100644 > --- a/tools/scripts/Makefile.include > +++ b/tools/scripts/Makefile.include > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wswitch-enum > EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wundef > EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wwrite-strings > EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wformat > +EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wno-type-limits > I don't like that kind of collateral damage. I seem to recall another instance where a macro was instead rewritten to avoid triggering the type-limits warning (with a comment explaining the uglyness). Something like foo > bar is the same as !(foo <= bar) which is the same as !(foo == bar || foo < bar) Dunno if that would work here, but if it did, it would have the bonus that when somebody builds the kernel proper with Wtype-limits enabled (maybe W=1 or W=2) there would be no false positives from GENMASK to wade through. Alternatively, we really should consider making use of _Pragma to locally disable/re-enable certain warnings. Rasmus
