RE: [PATCH net v3 3/3] rtase: Fix a type error in min_t

[Justin Lai <justinlai0215@realtek.com>]

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:28:31 +0100
> Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > + David Laight
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 04:56:59PM +0800, Justin Lai wrote:
> > > Fix a type error in min_t.
> > >
> > > Fixes: a36e9f5cfe9e ("rtase: Add support for a pci table in this
> > > module")
> > > Signed-off-by: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@realtek.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > > index 55b8d3666153..bc856fb3d6f3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > > @@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@ static u16 rtase_calc_time_mitigation(u32
> time_us)
> > >     u8 msb, time_count, time_unit;
> > >     u16 int_miti;
> > >
> > > -   time_us = min_t(int, time_us, RTASE_MITI_MAX_TIME);
> > > +   time_us = min_t(u32, time_us, RTASE_MITI_MAX_TIME);
> >
> > Hi Justin, Andrew, David, all,
> >
> > I may be on the wrong track here, but near the top of minmax.h I see:
> >
> > /*
> >  * min()/max()/clamp() macros must accomplish several things:
> >  *
> >  * - Avoid multiple evaluations of the arguments (so side-effects like
> >  *   "x++" happen only once) when non-constant.
> >  * - Perform signed v unsigned type-checking (to generate compile
> >  *   errors instead of nasty runtime surprises).
> >  * - Unsigned char/short are always promoted to signed int and can be
> >  *   compared against signed or unsigned arguments.
> >  * - Unsigned arguments can be compared against non-negative signed
> constants.
> >  * - Comparison of a signed argument against an unsigned constant fails
> >  *   even if the constant is below __INT_MAX__ and could be cast to int.
> >  */
> >
> > So, considering the 2nd last point, I think we can simply use min()
> > both above and below. Which would avoid the possibility of casting to
> > the wrong type again in future.
> >
> > Also, aside from which call is correct. Please add some colour to the
> > commit message describing why this is a bug if it is to be treated as
> > a fix for net rather than a clean-up for net-next.
> 
> Indeed.
> Using min_t(u16,...) is entirely an 'accident waiting to happen'.
> If you are going to cast all the arguments to a function you really better ensure
> the type is big enough for all the arguments.
> The fact that one is 'u16' in no way indicates that casting the
> other(s) won't discard high significant bits.
> (and if you want a u16 result it is entirely wrong.)
> 
> In this case i don't understand the code at all.
> The function is static and is only called once with a compile-time constant
> value.
> So, AFIACT, should reduce to a compile time constant.
> 
> There is also the entire 'issue' of using u16 variables at all.
> You might want u16 structure members (to save space or map hardware) but
> for local variables they are only likely to increase code size.
> 
>         David
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > >     if (time_us > RTASE_MITI_TIME_COUNT_MASK) {
> > >             msb = fls(time_us);
> > > @@ -1945,7 +1945,7 @@ static u16
> rtase_calc_packet_num_mitigation(u16 pkt_num)
> > >     u8 msb, pkt_num_count, pkt_num_unit;
> > >     u16 int_miti;
> > >
> > > -   pkt_num = min_t(int, pkt_num, RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM);
> > > +   pkt_num = min_t(u16, pkt_num, RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM);
> 
> So a definite NAK on that change.
> 
> > >
> > >     if (pkt_num > 60) {
> > >             pkt_num_unit = RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM_IDX;
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >

Hi David,

The boundary protection mechanism is in place to preserve potential
future scalability. I have modified the code to use min instead of
min_t and have posted it to net-next.

Thanks,
Justin