[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58c222c15b2d43689f43d31afb5cb914@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:14:58 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Yury Norov' <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Dennis Zhou" <dennis@...nel.org>,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
"Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@...il.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Alexey Klimov <aklimov@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 10/54] net: ethernet: replace bitmap_weight with
bitmap_empty for qlogic
From: Yury Norov
> Sent: 25 January 2022 21:10
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 10:38:41AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > qlogic/qed code calls bitmap_weight() to check if any bit of a given
> > > bitmap is set. It's better to use bitmap_empty() in that case because
> > > bitmap_empty() stops traversing the bitmap as soon as it finds first
> > > set bit, while bitmap_weight() counts all bits unconditionally.
> >
> > > - if (bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)&pmap[item], 64 * 8))
> > > + if (!bitmap_empty((unsigned long *)&pmap[item], 64 * 8))
> >
> > > - (bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)&pmap[item],
> > > + (!bitmap_empty((unsigned long *)&pmap[item],
> >
> > Side note, these castings reminds me previous discussion and I'm wondering
> > if you have this kind of potentially problematic places in your TODO as
> > subject to fix.
>
> In the discussion you mentioned above, the u32* was cast to u64*,
> which is wrong. The code
> here is safe because in the worst case, it casts u64* to u32*. This
> would be OK wrt
> -Werror=array-bounds.
>
> The function itself looks like doing this unsigned long <-> u64
> conversions just for printing
> purpose. I'm not a qlogic expert, so let's wait what people say?
It'll be wrong on BE systems.
You just can't cast the argument it has to be long[].
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists