On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 08:45:35AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:51:13PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > Manipulating 64-bit arrays with bitmap functions is potentially dangerous
> > > because on 32-bit BE machines the order of halfwords doesn't match.
> > > Another issue is that compiler may throw a warning about out-of-boundary
> > > access.
> > >
> > > This patch adds bitmap_{from,to}_arr64 functions in addition to existing
> > > bitmap_{from,to}_arr32.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > + bitmap_copy_clear_tail((unsigned long *) (bitmap), \
> > > + (const unsigned long *) (buf), (nbits))
> >
> > Drop spaces after castings. Besides that it might be placed on a single line.
> >
> > ...
>
> OK
>
> >
> > > + bitmap_copy_clear_tail((unsigned long *) (buf), \
> > > + (const unsigned long *) (bitmap), (nbits))
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +void bitmap_to_arr64(u64 *buf, const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int nbits)
> > > +{
> > > + const unsigned long *end = bitmap + BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits);
> > > +
> > > + while (bitmap < end) {
> > > + *buf = *bitmap++;
> > > + if (bitmap < end)
> > > + *buf |= (u64)(*bitmap++) << 32;
> > > + buf++;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > + /* Clear tail bits in last element of array beyond nbits. */
> > > + if (nbits % 64)
> > > + buf[-1] &= GENMASK_ULL(nbits, 0);
> >
> > Hmm... if nbits is > 0 and < 64, wouldn't be this problematic, since
> > end == bitmap? Or did I miss something?
>
> BITS_TO_LONGS(0) == 0
> BITS_TO_LONGS(1..32) == 1
> BITS_TO_LONGS(33..64) == 2
>
> The only potential problem with buf[-1] is nbits == 0, but fortunately
> (0 % 64) == 0, and it doesn't happen.
>
> Thanks,
> Yury
Are there any other concerns? If no, I'll fix formatting and append it to
bitmap-for-next.
Thanks,
Yury
