On 27/09/2024 11:42, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > The max() macro produce nicer code and also fixes the following cocci > errors: > > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h:40:17-18: WARNING opportunity for max() > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h:50:17-18: WARNING opportunity for max() > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h > index 8ba65161f7a9..9642506d2388 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static inline int sDIGIT_FITTING(int v, int a, int b) > int fit_shift = sFRACTION_BITS_FITTING(a) - b; > > v >>= sSHIFT; > - v >>= fit_shift > 0 ? fit_shift : 0; > + v >>= max(fit_shift, 0); Does the warning go away if you change this to: if (fit_shift > 0) v >>= fit_shift; Using 'max' for a shift is a bit weird in my opinion. Also this change was done to reduce the min/max calls, so introducing a new max call feels odd (although it should be fine). Note that I think those cocci warnings should perhaps be ignored or dropped. In part because of the huge macro expansion of min and max, but also I often find the code that is not using min or max at least as readable, if not more. Regards, Hans > > return clamp_t(int, v, sISP_VAL_MIN, sISP_VAL_MAX); > } > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static inline unsigned int uDIGIT_FITTING(unsigned int v, int a, int b) > int fit_shift = uFRACTION_BITS_FITTING(a) - b; > > v >>= uSHIFT; > - v >>= fit_shift > 0 ? fit_shift : 0; > + v >>= max(fit_shift, 0); > > return clamp_t(unsigned int, v, uISP_VAL_MIN, uISP_VAL_MAX); > } >
