From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, davem@davemloft.net,
jose.marchesi@oracle.com, sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com,
dave.kleikamp@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu-common: Do not use 64 bit constant 0xffffffffffffffffl for computing align_mask
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:44:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720144405.GA2175@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150719152724.GB3729@roeck-us.net>
On (07/19/15 08:27), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > - align_mask = 0xffffffffffffffffl >> (64 - align_order);
> > + align_mask = ~0l >> (64 - align_order);
> >
> Wonder if this just hides the real problem. Unless align_order
> is very large, the resulting mask on 32 bit systems may be 0.
> Is this really the idea ?
<subsequent example code deleted>
> So either case ~0l appears to be wrong; it should be ~0ul.
> I don't know if ~0ull makes a difference for some architectures.
I agree about the unsigned part. However, regarding the arch specific
twists..
I checked into this.. even though I have a test program on
x86_64 that "does the right thing" for both of
align_mask = ~0ul >> (64 - align_order);
align_mask = ~0ul >> (BITS_PER_LONG - align_order);
when I compiled with -m32 and without (I tried align_order == 1 and 31
for edge cases), I think there are some gcc/arch specific variations
possible based on undefined behavior, so that the second variant
is safer.
I'll send out a patch with that version soon.
--Sowmini
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-19 12:20 [PATCH] iommu-common: Do not use 64 bit constant 0xffffffffffffffffl for computing align_mask Sowmini Varadhan
2015-07-19 15:27 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-07-19 20:25 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-07-19 20:41 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-07-20 1:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-07-20 17:57 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-07-20 19:25 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-07-20 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2015-07-21 0:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-07-20 14:44 ` Sowmini Varadhan [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=20150720144405.GA2175@oracle.com \
--to=sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dave.kleikamp@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).