On 2026-04-22 at 11:11:26 -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote: >On 4/10/2026 2:55 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c >> index 1919fa6daec0..f14600e74d8c 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c >> @@ -24,11 +24,15 @@ >> # error This test is 64-bit only >> #endif >> >> +#define GENMASK(h, l) (((~0UL) << (l)) & (~0UL >> (__BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - >> (h)))) >> + > > >Did you run into any problem when including linux/bits.h? It would be >preferable to avoid redefining generic macros. I see the GENMASK defines >in tools/include/linux/bits.h and include/uapi/linux/bits.h.
Yeah, including it breaks something else in some other header that's included. >If you are running into issues with the x86 selftests header includes, >the uapi one should be safe to use. > >You probably just need: >#define GENMASK(h, l) __GENMASK(h, l) Okay, that is a better way, thanks :) > >> /* LAM modes, these definitions were copied from kernel code */ >> #define LAM_NONE 0 >> -#define LAM_U57_BITS 6 >> +#define LAM_TAG_BITS 4 >> +#define LAM_LS_BIT 57 >> +#define LAM_MS_BIT (LAM_LS_BIT + LAM_TAG_BITS - 1) /* 60 */ >> +#define LAM_UNTAG_MASK ~GENMASK(LAM_MS_BIT, LAM_LS_BIT) >> > >Same comment as patch 1: >#define LAM_UNTAG_MASK ~GENMASK(60, 57) Sure. > > >> -#define LAM_U57_MASK (0x3fULL << 57) >> /* arch prctl for LAM */ >> #define ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK 0x4001 >> #define ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR 0x4002 >> @@ -51,8 +55,8 @@ >> #define GET_USER_KERNEL 3 > >The rest of the patch looks fine. > >With the above addressed, > >Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <[email protected]> Thanks! -- Kind regards Maciej Wieczór-Retman
