linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: emxx_udc: fix warning "sum of probable bitmasks, consider |"

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

Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:04:43 +0530
From:   Hariprasad Kelam <hariprasad.kelam@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Carmeli Tamir <carmeli.tamir@...il.com>,
        Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: emxx_udc: fix warning "sum of probable
 bitmasks, consider |"

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:04:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:24:12AM +0530, Hariprasad Kelam wrote:
> > Knowing the fact that operator '|' is faster than '+'.
> > Its better we replace + with | in this case.
> > 
> > Issue reported by coccicheck
> > drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h:94:34-35: WARNING: sum of probable
> > bitmasks, consider |
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <hariprasad.kelam@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h b/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> > index b8c3dee..88d6bda 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int vbus_irq;
> >  #define BIT30		0x40000000
> >  #define BIT31		0x80000000
> 
> All of those BITXX defines should be removed and the "real" BIT(X) macro
> used instead.
Yes will send separate patch  to address this.
> 
> > -#define TEST_FORCE_ENABLE		(BIT18 + BIT16)
> > +#define TEST_FORCE_ENABLE		(BIT18 | BIT16)
> 
> It really doesn't matter, a good compiler will have already turned this
> into a constant value so you really do not know if this is less/faster
> code or not, right?
> 
> Did you look at the output to verify this actually changed anything?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Ok . Treating this as false postive from coccicheck.

Thanks,
Hariprasad k