On 23/06/2020 10:35, Rikard Falkeborn wrote:
>
> I'd say that GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() should be able to handle a l=0 and
> h=unsigned value, so I doubt this warn.
>
> Using GENMASK((int)cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift, 0) resolves it, but it
> looks
> like GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() could be improved.
>
>
> Indeed it could, it is fixed in -next.
ok, thanks for the pointer, but I still see this on today's -next with
this patch:
make W=1 drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.o
Oh, ok thanks for reporting. I guess different gcc versions have different behaviour. I guess we'll have to change the comparison to (!((h) == (l) || (h) > (l))) instead (not sure I got all parenthesis and logic correct but you get the idea).
I'm travelling and wont have time to look at this until next week though.
Rikard
In file included from ./include/linux/bits.h:23:0,
from ./include/linux/ioport.h:15,
from ./include/linux/acpi.h:12,
from drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c:12:
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c: In function ‘arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist’:
./include/linux/bits.h:27:7: warning: comparison of unsigned expression
< 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits]
(l) > (h), 0)))
^
./include/linux/build_bug.h:16:62: note: in definition of macro
‘BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO’
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) ((int)(sizeof(struct { int:(-!!(e)); })))
^
./include/linux/bits.h:40:3: note: in expansion of macro
‘GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK’
(GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) + __GENMASK(h, l))
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c:1404:18: note: in expansion of macro ‘GENMASK’
u32 prod_mask = GENMASK(cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift, 0);
That's gcc 7.5.0 .
Cheers,
John