From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Lin Yujun <linyujun809@huawei.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
kristina.martsenko@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, maz@kernel.org,
ardb@kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com,
masahiroy@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wanghai38@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arm64: Optimize the comparison of unsigned expressions to avoid compiling error
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:36:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/SewFthY/rGct7C@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230221012740.2929481-1-linyujun809@huawei.com>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:27:40AM +0800, Lin Yujun wrote:
> while compile arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h with
> -Werror=type-limits enabled, errors shown as below:
>
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h: In function 'system_supports_4kb_granule':
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h:653:14: error: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Werror=type-limits]
> return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> ^~
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h: In function 'system_supports_64kb_granule':
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h:666:14: error: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Werror=type-limits]
> return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> ^~
When is the `-Werror=type-limits` flag enabled by the build system?
We have patterns like this all over the kernel, and I don't think this is
indicative of a real problem, and I don't think that we need to change code to
make this warning disappear.
> Modify the return judgment statement, use
> "((val - min) < (val - max - 1))" to confirm that returns
> true in “min <= val <= max” cases, false in other cases.
That expression is far less clear than the existing code, so I do not think
that is a good idea.
> Fixes: 79d82cbcbb3d ("arm64/kexec: Test page size support with new TGRAN range values")
What functional error does this fix?
What configuration is broken?
Thanks,
Mark.
> Signed-off-by: Lin Yujun <linyujun809@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 03d1c9d7af82..0a6bda025141 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ enum ftr_type {
> #define FTR_VISIBLE_IF_IS_ENABLED(config) \
> (IS_ENABLED(config) ? FTR_VISIBLE : FTR_HIDDEN)
>
> +#define IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val, min, max) \
> + (((val) - (min)) < ((val) - (max) - 1))
> +
> struct arm64_ftr_bits {
> bool sign; /* Value is signed ? */
> bool visible;
> @@ -693,8 +696,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_4kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_64kb_granule(void)
> @@ -706,8 +710,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_64kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_16kb_granule(void)
> @@ -719,8 +724,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_16kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Lin Yujun <linyujun809@huawei.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
kristina.martsenko@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, maz@kernel.org,
ardb@kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com,
masahiroy@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wanghai38@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arm64: Optimize the comparison of unsigned expressions to avoid compiling error
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:36:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/SewFthY/rGct7C@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230221012740.2929481-1-linyujun809@huawei.com>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:27:40AM +0800, Lin Yujun wrote:
> while compile arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h with
> -Werror=type-limits enabled, errors shown as below:
>
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h: In function 'system_supports_4kb_granule':
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h:653:14: error: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Werror=type-limits]
> return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> ^~
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h: In function 'system_supports_64kb_granule':
> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h:666:14: error: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Werror=type-limits]
> return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> ^~
When is the `-Werror=type-limits` flag enabled by the build system?
We have patterns like this all over the kernel, and I don't think this is
indicative of a real problem, and I don't think that we need to change code to
make this warning disappear.
> Modify the return judgment statement, use
> "((val - min) < (val - max - 1))" to confirm that returns
> true in “min <= val <= max” cases, false in other cases.
That expression is far less clear than the existing code, so I do not think
that is a good idea.
> Fixes: 79d82cbcbb3d ("arm64/kexec: Test page size support with new TGRAN range values")
What functional error does this fix?
What configuration is broken?
Thanks,
Mark.
> Signed-off-by: Lin Yujun <linyujun809@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 03d1c9d7af82..0a6bda025141 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ enum ftr_type {
> #define FTR_VISIBLE_IF_IS_ENABLED(config) \
> (IS_ENABLED(config) ? FTR_VISIBLE : FTR_HIDDEN)
>
> +#define IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val, min, max) \
> + (((val) - (min)) < ((val) - (max) - 1))
> +
> struct arm64_ftr_bits {
> bool sign; /* Value is signed ? */
> bool visible;
> @@ -693,8 +696,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_4kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_64kb_granule(void)
> @@ -706,8 +710,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_64kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN64_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_16kb_granule(void)
> @@ -719,8 +724,9 @@ static inline bool system_supports_16kb_granule(void)
> val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
> ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SHIFT);
>
> - return (val >= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MIN) &&
> - (val <= ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> + return IN_RANGE_INCLUSIVE(val,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MIN,
> + ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SUPPORTED_MAX);
> }
>
> static inline bool system_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-21 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-21 1:27 [PATCH -next] arm64: Optimize the comparison of unsigned expressions to avoid compiling error Lin Yujun
2023-02-21 1:27 ` Lin Yujun
2023-02-21 10:36 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2023-02-21 10:36 ` Mark Rutland
2023-02-21 15:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-02-21 15:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-02-22 7:08 ` linyujun (C)
2023-02-22 7:08 ` linyujun (C)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y/SewFthY/rGct7C@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kristina.martsenko@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linyujun809@huawei.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=wanghai38@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.