On 01/30/18 12:43, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> Quoting Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> What happens if you do: ((u64)CEC_TIM_START_BIT_TOTAL +
>>>>
>>>> I think that forces everything else in the expression to be evaluated
>>>> as u64.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, in this case the operator precedence takes place and the
>>> expression len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL is computed first. So the
>>> issue remains the same.
>>>
>>> I can switch the expressions as follows:
>>>
>>> (u64)len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL + CEC_TIM_START_BIT_TOTAL
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> 10ULL * len * ...
>>
>
> Yeah, I like it.
>
>>>
>>> and avoid the cast in the middle.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> My problem is that (u64)len suggests that there is some problem with len
>> specifically, which isn't true.
>>
>
> That's a good point. Actually, I think the same applies for the rest
> of the patch series. Maybe it is a good idea to send a v2 of the whole
> patchset with that update.
>
>>>
>>>> It definitely needs a comment that this fixes a bogus Coverity report.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I actually added the following line to the message changelog:
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454996 ("Unintentional integer overflow")
>>
>> That needs to be in the source, otherwise someone will remove the
>> cast (or ULL) at some time in the future since it isn't clear why
>> it is done. And nobody reads commit logs from X years back :-)
>>
>
> You're right. I thought you were talking about the changelog.
>
> And unless you think otherwise, I think there is no need for any
> additional code comment if the update you suggest is applied:
>
> len * 10ULL * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL
I still think I'd like to see a comment. It is still not obvious why
you would want to use ULL here.
Please use "10ULL * len", it's actually a bit better to have it in
that order (it's 10 bits per character, so '10 * len' is a more logical
order).
Regards,
Hans
