On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 06:49:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 7/15/22 06:26, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:04:02 -0700 > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 02:13:10PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > > > Currently, many architecture-specific non-atomic bitop > > > > implementations use inline asm or other hacks which are faster or > > > > [...] > > > > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Building i386:allyesconfig ... failed > > > -------------- > > > Error log: > > > arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc-xo1-sci.c: In function 'send_ebook_state': > > > arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc-xo1-sci.c:83:63: error: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison > > > > Looks like a trigger, not a cause... Anyway, this construct: > > > > unsigned char state; > > > > [...] > > > > if (!!test_bit(SW_TABLET_MODE, ebook_switch_idev->sw) == state) > > > > doesn't look legit enough. > > That redundant double-negation [of boolean value], together with > > comparing boolean to char, provokes compilers to think the author > > made logical mistakes here, although it works as expected. > > Could you please try (if it's not automated build which you can't > > modify) the following: > > > > Agreed, the existing code seems wrong. The change below looks correct > and fixes the problem. Feel free to add > > Reviewed-and-tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > to the real patch. > > Thanks, > Guenter > > > --- a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc-xo1-sci.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc-xo1-sci.c > > @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static void send_ebook_state(void) > > return; > > } > > - if (!!test_bit(SW_TABLET_MODE, ebook_switch_idev->sw) == state) > > + if (test_bit(SW_TABLET_MODE, ebook_switch_idev->sw) == !!state) > > return; /* Nothing new to report. */ > > input_report_switch(ebook_switch_idev, SW_TABLET_MODE, state); > > --- > > > > We'd take it into the bitmap tree then. The series revealed > > a fistful of existing code issues already :) Would you like me to add your signed-off-by and apply, or you prefer to send it out as a patch? Thanks, Yury
