[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whhGQuMuuBkLBKGL3kM+8j3+TC_xt+QKFCs1qNySBv3-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:45:52 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/32] locking/lockdep: Prepare valid_state() to handle
plain masks
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:14 AM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> +
> + while (vectors) {
> + long fs = __ffs64(vectors) + 1;
> +
> + vectors >>= fs;
This is wrong.
If "vectors" only has the high hit set, you end up with "fs" having
the value "64".
And then "vectors >>= fs" is undefined and won't actually do anything
at all on x86.
In general, avoid "ffs()", and the stupid pattern of "__ffs(x)+1".
Bit numbering starts at 0. "ffs()" is wrong. And you never *ever* just
add one to a bit number in order to shift by one more bit, exactly
because of overflow issues.
So it may look inefficient, but the correct thing to do is
long bit = __ffs64(vectors);
vectors >>= fs;
vectors >>= 1;
because that actually works.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists