On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:17 AM Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote:
> > On 2019-03-07 8:52 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
> > > +/* double shift to work around
> > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38789 */
> > > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL :
> > > ((1ULL<<((n)-1))<<1)-1)
> >
> > I think that now makes DMA_BIT_MASK(0) undefined - that shouldn't matter
> > in most cases, but it could potentially happen at runtime where callers
> > use a non-constant argument. However, it also means we don't need to
> > special-case 64 any more (since that's there to avoid the same thing
> > anyway), so we could simply flip that to handle 0 instead.
>
> Yes, good idea.
>
> > FWIW I'd be very tempted to fold in the second shift as "2ULL<<((n)-1)",
> > but that may not be to everyone's taste.
>
> I like that. So shall we do this?
>
> /*
> * Shifting '2' instead of '1' because of
> * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38789
> */
> #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 0) ? 0ULL : ((2ULL<<((n)-1)))-1)
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
