[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd1=EFsT9pKunDYbXzf0D8cMvU3_n-AsD1CXpOPSa+5pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:21:05 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/20] gpiolib: cdev: support GPIO_V2_LINE_SET_VALUES_IOCTL
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:32 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:18:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:36 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add support for the GPIO_V2_LINE_SET_VALUES_IOCTL.
> >
> > > +static long linereq_set_values_unlocked(struct linereq *lr,
> > > + struct gpio_v2_line_values *lv)
> > > +{
> > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(vals, GPIO_V2_LINES_MAX);
> > > + struct gpio_desc **descs;
> > > + unsigned int i, didx, num_set;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + bitmap_zero(vals, GPIO_V2_LINES_MAX);
> > > + for (num_set = 0, i = 0; i < lr->num_lines; i++) {
> > > + if (lv->mask & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> >
> > Similar idea
> >
> > DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, 64) = BITMAP_FROM_U64(lv->mask);
> >
> > num_set = bitmap_weight();
> >
>
> I had played with this option, but bitmap_weight() counts all
> the bits set in the mask - which considers bits >= lr->num_lines.
Does it mean we have a bug in the code and no test case covered it?
Because from the API I see the parameter nbits which should prevent
this.
> So you would need to mask lv->mask before converting it to a bitmap.
> (I'm ok with ignoring those bits in case userspace wants to be lazy and
> use an all 1s mask.)
Can you confirm a bug in bitmap API? If it's so it's a serious one.
> But since we're looping over the bitmap anyway we may as well just
> count as we go.
>
> > for_each_set_bit(i, mask, lr->num_lines)
> >
>
> Yeah, that should work. I vaguely recall trying this and finding it
> generated larger object code, but I'll give it another try and if it
> works out then include it in v10.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists