From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 14:10:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 02/18] arm64: move SCTLR_EL{1,2} assertions to In-Reply-To: <20180514124122.GJ7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180514094640.27569-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20180514094640.27569-3-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20180514100053.GX7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20180514100858.4xjp5d3axbyy74ap@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20180514112036.GI7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <8d66d231-d8a2-07c1-6c5b-24c9474c851f@arm.com> <20180514120609.3vd2s4l3rknd2b3e@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20180514124122.GJ7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20180514131012.7y3vmvoxvtjsqdyn@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:06:10PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:56:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > On 14/05/18 12:20, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > How about the following? > > > > > > > > /* Watch out for #if evaluation rules: ~0 is not ~(int)0! */ > > > > > > Or, more formally, perhaps something even less vague like "Note that in > > > preprocessor arithmetic these constants are effectively of type intmax_t, > > > which is 64-bit, thus ~0 is not what we want." > > > > I'll drop something in the commit message to that effect, rather than a > > comment. > > > > A comment will end up terse and vague or large and bloatsome (and > > redundant as we have this pattern twice). > > > > Anyone attempting to "clean" this up will find things break, and they can > > look at the git log to find out why it is the way it is... > > Fair enough. So long as we say something somewhere, that's > sufficient for me. > > With that, > > Reviewed-by: Dave Martin > > (as previously stated). Cheers! Mark.