On Thursday 18 April 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Never got the original patch...
>
> A much better idea is to get rid of that buggy MAX() macro altogether
> and use the macros already provided by the kernel, which are safe from
> side effects - but more importantly are type _safe_. The above goes
> wrong when you consider 'a' and 'b' may have different signed-ness.
Yes, that's what was suggested before.
> Consider:
>
> int val_in = -5;
> unsigned val = MAX(val_in, 5U);
>
> The resulting value is (unsigned)-5, not (unsigned)5.
>
> Best use the kernel's max() or max_t() _everywhere_.
Unfortunately, the (only) use of this macro is in a structure declaration
where you cannot use the syntax of max():
struct d40_base {
...
u32 reg_val_backup_v4[MAX(BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4A, BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4B)];
...
};
My preferred solution would be to remove the MAX macro here and
define a new constant
#define BACKUP_REGS_SZ ((BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4A > BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4B) ? \
BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4A : BACKUP_REGS_SZ_V4B)
But I don't see it as much of an improvement over what is currently
there.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
