[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514112036.GI7753@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 12:20:37 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: marc.zyngier@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...inikbrodowski.net,
james.morse@....com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] arm64: move SCTLR_EL{1,2} assertions to
<asm/sysreg.h>
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:08:59AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.
How about the following?
/* Watch out for #if evaluation rules: ~0 is not ~(int)0! */
Cheers
---Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists