On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 20:09 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> > Sent: 22 February 2022 18:43
> >
> > On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 08:56 -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:45:53AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 08:31 -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > > > +/ *
> > > > > > + * lower_48_bits - return bits 0-47 of a number
> > > > > > + * @n: the number we're accessing
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +#define lower_48_bits(n) ((u64)((n) & 0xffffffffffffull))
> > > > >
> > > > > why not make this a static inline function?
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Sure, that sounds good to me. I only did it this way to match the
> > > existing local convention, but I personally prefer the inline function
> > > too.
> >
> > The existing convention is used there to allow the compiler to
> > avoid warnings and unnecessary conversions of a u32 to a u64 when
> > shifting by 32 or more bits.
> >
> > If it's possible to be used with an architecture dependent typedef
> > like dma_addr_t, then perhaps it's reasonable to do something like:
> >
> > #define lower_48_bits(val) \
> > ({ \
> > typeof(val) high = lower_16_bits(upper_32_bits(val)); \
> > typeof(val) low = lower_32_bits(val); \
> > \
> > (high << 16 << 16) | low; \
> > })
> >
> > and have the compiler have the return value be an appropriate type.
>
> The compiler could make a real pigs breakfast of that.
Both gcc and clang optimize it just fine.
btw: to return the same type the last line should be:
(typeof(val))((high << 16 << 16) | low);
otherwise the return is sizeof(int) if typeof(val) is not u64
> Oh, did you look for GENMASK([^,]*,[ 0]*) ?
No, why? I did look for 47, 0 though.
But it's pretty common really.
$ git grep -P 'GENMASK(?:_ULL)?\s*\(\s*\d+\s*,\s*0\s*\)' | wc -l
6233
> I'd only use something GENMASK() for bit ranges.
> Even then it is often easier to just write the value in hex.
Mostly it's the count of the repeated f that's difficult to
quickly verify visually.
> I think the only time I've written anything like that recently
> (last 30 years) was for some hardware registers when the documentation
> user 'bit 1' for the most significant bit.
Luckily the hardware I've had to deal with never did that.
Not even the least significant bit too.
