[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66b5e5c3ed82a5e1559419deb841c57bf0751fd3.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:07:47 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: mmu: Add cast to negated bitmasks in
update_permission_bitmask()
On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 19:35 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/06/2018 19:23, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 10:08 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:19 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 15/06/2018 20:45, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In any case I think it it preferable to fix the code over disabling
> > > > > > > the warning, unless the warning is bogus or there are just too many
> > > > > > > occurrences.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Spurious warning today, actual bug tomorrow? I prefer to not to
> > > > > disable warnings wholesale. They don't need to find actual bugs to be
> > > > > useful. Flagging code that can be further specified does not hurt.
> > > > > Part of the effort to compile the kernel with different compilers is
> > > > > to add warning coverage, not remove it. That said, there may be
> > > > > warnings that are never useful (or at least due to some invariant that
> > > > > only affects the kernel). I cant think of any off the top of my head,
> > > > > but I'm also not sure this is one.
> > > >
> > > > This one really makes the code uglier though, so I'm not really inclined
> > > > to applying the patch.
> > >
> > > Note that of the three variables (w, u, x), only u is used later on.
> > > What about declaring them as negated with the cast, that way there's
> > > no cast in a ternary?
> >
> > It'd be simpler to cast in the BYTE_MASK macro itself
>
> I don't think that would work, as the ~ would be done on a zero-extended
> signed int.
True, but the whole concept is dubious.
The implicit casts are all over the place,
not just in the file.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists