On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 01:35:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: 'Andy Shevchenko' > > Sent: 20 June 2023 14:25 > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:06:49PM +0000, David Laight wrote: ... > > > > + *hi = clamp_val(*hi, 500, 1000000); > > > > > > (standard rant about minmax.h) > > > > > > clamp_val() is pretty much broken by design. > > > It MIGHT be ok here but it casts both limits to the > > > type of the value being compared. > > > In general that is just plain wrong. > > > > > > Like min_t() it is generally ok because the kernel only uses > > > unsigned values between 0 and MAXINT. > > > > > > If min/max were ok, then using clamp() should also be ok. > > > > Submit a patch to fix it, if you think you can make it better. > > Obviously your comment can be addressed separately if we even > > need that. > > Did you try using clamp() ? > > To see why clamp_val() is broken consider? > unsigned char val = 200; > ... > xxx = clamp_val(val, 10, 300); > > This sets xxx to 44 - not exactly expected. Right, clamp_val() has to be improved. However this is not the case in this driver. I have just sent a v2 with clamp(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
