linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] bits: introduce fixed-type BIT

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]

Message-ID: <Z-FtEr31u0jmeSRX@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:32:50 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] bits: introduce fixed-type BIT_U*()

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:16:30PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On 24/03/2025 at 22:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:23:13PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:


...

> >> +/*
> >> + * Fixed-type variants of BIT(), with additional checks like GENMASK_TYPE(). The
> >> + * following examples generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:
> > 
> > "...due to -Wshift-count-overflow:" ?
> > 
> > Same idea — if you need a new version, since it's just a nit-pick.
> 
> If you want. I staged this change locally, so if there is a v8, it will
> be addressed. I applied the same to the previous patch which also
> mentioned shift-count-overflow without the -W prefix.
> 
> But honestly, I am not convinced of the added value. This is from Lucas
> original patch one year ago, and no one was bothered by this. IMHO, when
> writing:
> 
>   (...) generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:
> 
> I do not see where the ambiguity is. The sentence clearly say that this
> is a compiler warning, so with or without the -W prefix, the sentence is
> equally understandable.

As I marked, it's a nit-pick, but from my point of view the added value
is immediate: The reader can be sure that we are talking about a compiler
warning and not something else (C standard? some special term?). So it adds
more context and makes it clearer.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko