8:19 p.m.
On 23/06/2020 10:35, Rikard Falkeborn wrote:
I'd say that GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() should be able to handle a l=0 and
h=unsigned value, so I doubt this warn.
Using GENMASK((int)cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift, 0) resolves it, but it
looks
like GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() could be improved.
Indeed it could, it is fixed in -next.
ok, thanks for the pointer, but I still see this on today's -next with
this patch:
make W=1 drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.o
In file included from ./include/linux/bits.h:23:0,
from ./include/linux/ioport.h:15,
from ./include/linux/acpi.h:12,
from drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c:12:
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c: In function ‘arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist’:
./include/linux/bits.h:27:7: warning: comparison of unsigned expression
< 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits]
(l) > (h), 0)))
^
./include/linux/build_bug.h:16:62: note: in definition of macro
‘BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO’
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) ((int)(sizeof(struct { int:(-!!(e)); })))
^
./include/linux/bits.h:40:3: note: in expansion of macro
‘GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK’
(GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) + __GENMASK(h, l))
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c:1404:18: note: in expansion of macro ‘GENMASK’
u32 prod_mask = GENMASK(cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift, 0);
That's gcc 7.5.0 .
Cheers,
John
819
days inactive
819
days old
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
John Garry