netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 5/5] net: can: ifi: Add IFI CANFD IP support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:11:48 +0000
From:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
CC:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/5] net: can: ifi: Add IFI CANFD IP support

Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> wrote:

> I see, so adding u32 also here works. I'm starting to wonder if the BIT
> macro is really that nice and if I shouldn't just use (1 << n) as usual.

Actually, (1 << n) is not so good either when n is 31 - it can trigger  
overflow warnings since it will be presumed to be a signed value. (1U << n)  
should avoid that problem. Unfortunately, BIT() uses 1UL which produces  
64-bit values on 64-bit arches. The bit ops are kind of a mess in that way.  
It would be nicer if BIT was restricted to int-size values and a new BIT_UL  
or something would produce the long values.

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)