Re: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bits: introduce fixed-type genmasks

[Gustavo Sousa]

Quoting Yury Norov (2024-01-24 12:27:58-03:00)
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:03:53AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:58:26AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > 
>> > > Generalize __GENMASK() to support different types, and implement
>> > > fixed-types versions of GENMASK() based on it. The fixed-type version
>> > > allows more strict checks to the min/max values accepted, which is
>> > > useful for defining registers like implemented by i915 and xe drivers
>> > > with their REG_GENMASK*() macros.
>> > 
>> > Mmh, the commit message says the fixed-type version allows more strict
>> > checks, but none are actually added. GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() remains the
>> > same.
>> > 
>> > Compared to the i915 and xe versions, this is more lax now. You could
>> > specify GENMASK_U32(63,32) without complaints.
>> 
>> Doing this on top of the this series:
>> 
>> -#define   XELPDP_PORT_M2P_COMMAND_TYPE_MASK            REG_GENMASK(30, 27)
>> +#define   XELPDP_PORT_M2P_COMMAND_TYPE_MASK            REG_GENMASK(62, 32)
>> 
>> and I do get a build failure:
>> 
>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cx0_phy.c: In function ‘__intel_cx0_read_once’:
>> ../include/linux/bits.h:41:31: error: left shift count >= width of type [-Werror=shift-count-overflow]
>>    41 |          (((t)~0ULL - ((t)(1) << (l)) + 1) & \
>>       |                               ^~
>
>I would better include this in commit message to avoid people's
>confusion. If it comes to v2, can you please do it and mention that
>this trick relies on shift-count-overflow compiler check?

Wouldn't it be better to have explicit check that l and h are not out of bounds
based on BITS_PER_TYPE() than relying on a compiler flag that could be turned
off (maybe for some questionable reason, but even so)?

--
Gustavo Sousa