[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140515194437.GM28907@ld-irv-0074>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:44:37 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:03:09PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking to use roundup_pow_of_two() (actually, order_base_2())
> > from <linux/log2.h>, but it seems that it only supports 64-bit integers
> > if your toolchain uses a 64-bit 'unsigned long' type. This is strange,
> > considering that ilog2() is explicitly designed for 32-bit or 64-bit
> > compatibility.
>
> ilog2() was explicitly designed for use with 'unsigned long'. See the commit
> description (f0d1b0b30d250a07627ad8b9fbbb5c7cc08422e8). It may work with
> unsigned long long, however...
That's another confusing point; the commit description says 'unsigned
long', but the code shows nothing of that sort, and the comments say
nearly the reverse (mentioning '32-bit and 64-bit', not 'unsigned
long'). The code only referenes ULL constants, and it selects a 32-bit
or 64-bit runtime version based on the type. To me, this demonstrates an
explicit design for "32-bit or 64-bit", regardless of the dimensions of
your 'long'.
So this leaves me with 2 main issues:
(1) Can we make <linux/ilog2.h> have some sense of consistency? If so,
how?
- Enforce the 'unsigned long' design (i.e., don't support
ilog2(u64) when sizeof(unsigned long) == 4)?
- Make all high-level macros automatically support 32-bit or 64-bit,
regardless of type?
- Split out 32-bit vs. 64-bit functions for everything?
Obviously some of these options are sillier than others.
(2) Powerpc (and maybe some of SH's PCI) code has a potential bug, due
to using roundup_pow_of_two() on type phys_addr_t, which could
overflow for LPAE systems with large physical memory ranges. Is this
a legitimate concern?
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists