On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:28 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Clang has a rather annoying behavior of checking for integer
> > arithmetic problems in code paths that are discarded by gcc
> > before that perfoms the same checks.
> >
> > For DMA_BIT_MASK(64), this leads to a warning despite the
> > result of the macro being completely sensible:
> >
> > arch/arm/plat-iop/adma.c:146:24: error: shift count >= width of type
> > [-Werror,-Wshift-count-overflow]
> > .coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(64),
> >
> > The best workaround I could come up with is to shift the
> > value twice, which makes the macro way less readable but
> > always has the same result.
> >
> > Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38789
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > index 75e60be91e5f..380d3a95d02e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > @@ -138,7 +138,8 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
> > extern const struct dma_map_ops dma_virt_ops;
> > extern const struct dma_map_ops dma_dummy_ops;
> >
> > -#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))
>
> The second "-1" should be done on the final result, not on the
> intermediate value.
Ah, of course. I'll send an update patch in a bit, sorry about this.
Arnd
