On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:58:30PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:52:43PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:40:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:27:34PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > > On some platforms, `char` is unsigned, which makes casting -7 to char > > > > > overflow, which in turn makes the clamping operation bogus. Instead, > > > > > deal with an explicit `s8` type, so that the comparison is always > > > > > signed, and return an s8 result from the function as well. Note that > > > > > this function's result is assigned to a `short`, which is always signed. > > > > > > > > Why not to use short? See my patch I just sent. > > > > > > Trying to have the most minimal change here that doesn't rock the boat. > > > I'm not out to rewrite the driver. I don't know the original author's > > > rationales. This patch here is correct and will generate the same code > > > as before on architectures where it wasn't broken. > > > > > > However, if you want your "change the codegen" patch to be taken > > > seriously, you should probably send it to the wireless maintainers like > > > this one, and they can decide. Personally, I don't really care either > > > way. > > > > I have checked the code paths there and I found no evidence that short can't be > > used. That's why my patch. > > Do you have a rationale why you want to change codegen? It's not a hot path as far as I understand and keeping data types aligned seems to me worth it even if codegen is changed. IS it so awful with short? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
