[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04b7e240-8e1d-1402-3cef-e65469bd9317@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:50:32 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Vihas Mak <makvihas@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: seanjc@...gle.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: fix cocci warnings
On 11/15/21 10:59, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> One minor remark: 'kvm_set_pte_rmapp()' handler is passed to
> 'kvm_handle_gfn_range()' which does
>
> bool ret = false;
>
> for_each_slot_rmap_range(...)
> ret |= handler(...);
>
> and I find '|=' to not be very natural with booleans. I'm not sure it's
> worth changing though.
Changing that would be "harder" than it seems because "ret = ret ||
handler(...)" is wrong, and "|" is even more unnatural than "|=" (so
much that clang warns about it).
In fact I wonder if "|=" with a bool might end up warning with clang,
which we should check before applying this patch. It doesn't seem to be
in the original commit[1], but better safe than sorry: Nick, does clang
intend to warn also about "ret |= fn()" and "ret &= fn()"? Technically,
it is a bitwise operation with side-effects in the RHS.
Paolo
[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f59cc9542bfb461
Powered by blists - more mailing lists