[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=XO-RP7-fqnyg=6JeJRh45uGY_p1hnaF17i7R6rZXCuJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:55:04 +0200
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, pcc@...gle.com,
andreyknvl@...il.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, yury.norov@...il.com,
alexandru.elisei@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, eugenis@...gle.com,
syednwaris@...il.com, william.gray@...aro.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{read,write}()
>
> I realized that the corner case with these functions is when agnostic user
> wants to read / write > 32 bits at a time without ifdeffery applied.
Shall we change
if (unlikely(!nbits))
return;
to
if (unlikely(!nbits || nbits > BITS_PER_LONG))
return;
?
> At bare minimum this has to be documented explicitly, that callers
> may have an issue of the above calls on 32-bit platforms.
Given that bitmap_read() returns an unsigned long, and bitmap_write()
writes an unsigned long, passing a 64-bit value would be a bug.
But you are right, documenting this won't hurt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists