From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Protect the argument expansion in LRI and SRM macros Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:47:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20140407204705.GC18726@intel.com> References: <1396898674-22510-1-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com> <1396898674-22510-2-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CB86E7AB for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1396898674-22510-2-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Damien Lespiau Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:24:32PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > It seems like it wouldn't be too unlikely to be wanting to use a an > expression in the macro argument and things could go very wrong. > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > index 2315366..22d8b14 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > @@ -265,8 +265,8 @@ > * - One can actually load arbitrary many arbitrary registers: Simply issue x > * address/value pairs. Don't overdue it, though, x <= 2^4 must hold! > */ > -#define MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM(x) MI_INSTR(0x22, 2*x-1) > -#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM(x) MI_INSTR(0x24, 2*x-1) > +#define MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM(x) MI_INSTR(0x22, 2*(x)-1) > +#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM(x) MI_INSTR(0x24, 2*(x)-1) > #define MI_SRM_LRM_GLOBAL_GTT (1<<22) > #define MI_FLUSH_DW MI_INSTR(0x26, 1) /* for GEN6 */ > #define MI_FLUSH_DW_STORE_INDEX (1<<21) I was just looking at this macro myself recently (well, LRI, not SRM). I think it would be good to WARN_ON values of X which are too large. (I'd rather BUG, but we don't have to go that route). Any thoughts on that? Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center