Re: [PATCH] Avoid that check_shl_overflow() triggers a compiler warning when building with W=1

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 06:14:09PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/6/19 5:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:01:53PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > This patch avoids that the following warning is reported when building
> > > the mlx5 driver with W=1:
> > >
> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c: In function set_user_rq_size:
> > > ./include/linux/overflow.h:230:6: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits]
> > >     _s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0;  \
> > >        ^
> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro check_shl_overflow
> > >    if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size))
> > >        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Fixes: 0c66847793d1 ("overflow.h: Add arithmetic shift helper") # v4.19
> > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
> > >   include/linux/overflow.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > > index 40b48e2133cb..8afe0c0ada6f 100644
> > > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > > @@ -202,6 +202,24 @@
> > >   #endif /* COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW */
> > > +/*
> > > + * Evaluate a >= 0 without triggering a compiler warning if the type of a
> > > + * is an unsigned type.
> > > + */
> > > +#define is_positive(a) ({					\
> > > +	typeof(a) _minus_one = -1LL;				\
> > > +	typeof((a) + 0U) _sign_mask = _minus_one > 0 ? 0 :	\
> >
> > This is probably just is_signed_type(a)
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> I don't think that gcc accepts something like is_signed_type(typeof(a)) so
> I'm not sure that the is_signed_type() macro is useful in this context.
>
> > > +				1ULL << (8 * sizeof(a) - 1);	\
> > > +								\
> > > +	((a) & _sign_mask) == 0;				\
> > This is the same sort of obfuscation that Leon was building, do you
> > think the & is better than his ==, >  version?
> >
> > Will gcc shortcircuit the warning if we write it as
> >
> > (is_signed_type(a) && a < 0)
> >
> > ?
>
> I have tested this patch. With this patch applied no warnings are reported
> while building the mlx5 driver and the tests in lib/test_overflow.c pass.

Bart,

My simple patch passes too :).

>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature