From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:39004 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750917AbeENKJE (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 14 May 2018 06:09:04 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:08:59 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@dominikbrodowski.net,
        james.morse@arm.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] arm64: move SCTLR_EL{1,2} assertions to
 <asm/sysreg.h>
Message-ID: <20180514100858.4xjp5d3axbyy74ap@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180514094640.27569-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20180514094640.27569-3-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20180514100053.GX7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180514100053.GX7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:00:53AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:46:24AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > -/* Check all the bits are accounted for */
> > -#define SCTLR_EL2_BUILD_BUG_ON_MISSING_BITS	BUILD_BUG_ON((SCTLR_EL2_SET ^ SCTLR_EL2_CLEAR) != ~0)
> > -
> > +#if (SCTLR_EL2_SET ^ SCTLR_EL2_CLEAR) != 0xffffffff
> > +#error "Inconsistent SCTLR_EL2 set/clear bits"
> > +#endif
> 
> Can we have a comment on the != 0xffffffff versus != ~0 here?
> 
> The subtle differences in evaluation semantics between #if and
> other contexts here may well trip people up during maintenance...

Do you have any suggestion as to the wording?

I'm happy to add a comment, but I don't really know what to say.

Thanks,
Mark.