Re: [PATCH] overflow: Update is_non_negative() and is_negative() comment

[Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@kernel.org>]

On 03/01/2026 at 11:02, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Thanks Randy, for sending this to me.  I'm on the sparse list, but
> I've been on vacation and haven't caught up with my email. 

Welcome back, hope you enjoyed your holidays!

>I can easily silence this in Smatch.

Thanks. I ran this locally, I can confirm that this silences the
warning. So:

Tested-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@kernel.org>

> diff --git a/check_unsigned_lt_zero.c b/check_unsigned_lt_zero.c
> index bfeb3261f91d..ac3e650704ce 100644
> --- a/check_unsigned_lt_zero.c
> +++ b/check_unsigned_lt_zero.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ static bool is_allowed_zero(struct expression *expr)
>  	    strcmp(macro, "STRTO_H") == 0 ||
>  	    strcmp(macro, "SUB_EXTEND_USTAT") == 0 ||
>  	    strcmp(macro, "TEST_CASTABLE_TO_TYPE_VAR") == 0 ||
> -	    strcmp(macro, "TEST_ONE_SHIFT") == 0)
> +	    strcmp(macro, "TEST_ONE_SHIFT") == 0 ||
> +	    strcmp(macro, "check_shl_overflow") == 0)

But, for the long term, wouldn't it better to just ignore all the code
coming from macro extensions instead of maintaining this allow-list?

>  		return true;
>  	return false;
>  }


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol