From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:44:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140515194437.GM28907@ld-irv-0074> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29314.1400166189@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:03:09PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking to use roundup_pow_of_two() (actually, order_base_2())
> > from <linux/log2.h>, but it seems that it only supports 64-bit integers
> > if your toolchain uses a 64-bit 'unsigned long' type. This is strange,
> > considering that ilog2() is explicitly designed for 32-bit or 64-bit
> > compatibility.
>
> ilog2() was explicitly designed for use with 'unsigned long'. See the commit
> description (f0d1b0b30d250a07627ad8b9fbbb5c7cc08422e8). It may work with
> unsigned long long, however...
That's another confusing point; the commit description says 'unsigned
long', but the code shows nothing of that sort, and the comments say
nearly the reverse (mentioning '32-bit and 64-bit', not 'unsigned
long'). The code only referenes ULL constants, and it selects a 32-bit
or 64-bit runtime version based on the type. To me, this demonstrates an
explicit design for "32-bit or 64-bit", regardless of the dimensions of
your 'long'.
So this leaves me with 2 main issues:
(1) Can we make <linux/ilog2.h> have some sense of consistency? If so,
how?
- Enforce the 'unsigned long' design (i.e., don't support
ilog2(u64) when sizeof(unsigned long) == 4)?
- Make all high-level macros automatically support 32-bit or 64-bit,
regardless of type?
- Split out 32-bit vs. 64-bit functions for everything?
Obviously some of these options are sillier than others.
(2) Powerpc (and maybe some of SH's PCI) code has a potential bug, due
to using roundup_pow_of_two() on type phys_addr_t, which could
overflow for LPAE systems with large physical memory ranges. Is this
a legitimate concern?
Brian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-15 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-15 2:22 roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers Brian Norris
2014-05-15 15:03 ` David Howells
2014-05-15 19:44 ` Brian Norris [this message]
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=20140515194437.GM28907@ld-irv-0074 \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox