Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1457658 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Binderman <linuxdev.baldrick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-08 11:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-09 18:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? David Binderman <linuxdev.baldrick@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:40 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-08-08 11:50 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 05:00 +0200
Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com> - 2016-08-09 18:10 +0200
| From | David Binderman <linuxdev.baldrick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? |
| Message-ID | <s3Pcl-82a-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hello there, Recent versions of gcc say this: include/drm/i915_drm.h:96:34: warning: result of ‘65535 << 20’ requires 37 bits to represent, but ‘int’ only has 32 bits [-Wshift-overflow=] Source code is #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFF << 20) Maybe something like #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFFUL<< 20) might be better. Regards David Binderman
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 11:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? |
| Message-ID | <s3Pm1-85D-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1457658 |
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:31:32AM +0100, David Binderman wrote: > Hello there, > > Recent versions of gcc say this: > > include/drm/i915_drm.h:96:34: warning: result of ‘65535 << 20’ > requires 37 bits to represent, but ‘int’ only has 32 bits > [-Wshift-overflow=] > > Source code is > > #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFF << 20) > > Maybe something like > > #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFFUL<< 20) > > might be better. Yup. Care to bake this into a patch (with s-o-b and everything per Documentation/SubmittingPatches) so I can apply it? -Daniel > > > Regards > > David Binderman > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 05:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? |
| Message-ID | <s45qN-1AB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1457666 |
On 8 August 2016 at 19:40, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:31:32AM +0100, David Binderman wrote: >> Hello there, >> >> Recent versions of gcc say this: >> >> include/drm/i915_drm.h:96:34: warning: result of ‘65535 << 20’ >> requires 37 bits to represent, but ‘int’ only has 32 bits >> [-Wshift-overflow=] >> >> Source code is >> >> #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFF << 20) >> >> Maybe something like >> >> #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFFUL<< 20) >> >> might be better. > > Yup. Care to bake this into a patch (with s-o-b and everything per > Documentation/SubmittingPatches) so I can apply it? Why would you want to apply a clearly incorrect patch :-) INTEL_BSM_MASK is used in one place, on a 32-bit number I'm not sure what it needs to be, but a 64-bit number it doesn't. Dave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 18:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] include/drm/i915_drm.h:96: possible bad bitmask ? |
| Message-ID | <s4hLj-1pO-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1458376 |
On 09/08/16 03:59, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 19:40, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:31:32AM +0100, David Binderman wrote: >>> Hello there, >>> >>> Recent versions of gcc say this: >>> >>> include/drm/i915_drm.h:96:34: warning: result of ‘65535 << 20’ >>> requires 37 bits to represent, but ‘int’ only has 32 bits >>> [-Wshift-overflow=] >>> >>> Source code is >>> >>> #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFF << 20) >>> >>> Maybe something like >>> >>> #define INTEL_BSM_MASK (0xFFFFUL<< 20) >>> >>> might be better. >> >> Yup. Care to bake this into a patch (with s-o-b and everything per >> Documentation/SubmittingPatches) so I can apply it? > > Why would you want to apply a clearly incorrect patch :-) > > INTEL_BSM_MASK is used in one place, on a 32-bit number > > I'm not sure what it needs to be, but a 64-bit number it doesn't. > > Dave. I found two uses, but in both cases it's masking a value read from a 32-bit PCI register, so it can just be (-(1 << 20)). .Dave.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web