netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool] fsl_enetc: add support for NXP ENETC driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y2RBTTEOyIlfybyA@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 23:31:41 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool] fsl_enetc: add support for NXP ENETC driver

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:20:15PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 05:34:53PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > > +#define BIT(x)			(1 << (x))
> > 
> > This macro is only used to mask bits of a u32 value, wouldn't "1U" be
> > more appropriate?
> 
> I'm not sure that signed vs unsigned operands make a difference for left
> shifting (as opposed to right shifting where they definitely do), but I
> will make this change and resubmit. Thanks for the review.

>From what i understand, a signed 1 shifted 31 bits is undefined
behaviour. Unsigned 1 shifted 31 is O.K.

	   Andrew