lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] nilfs2: Use __field_struct() for a bitwise field
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 1:25 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 07:25, Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Despite that change, sparse complains when
> > passing a bitwise type to is_signed_type(). It is not clear to me why.
>
> Bah. The reason is this:
>
> #define is_signed_type(type) (((type)(-1)) < (__force type)1)
>
> Basically, the way "is_signed_type()" works is that it casts a
> negative integer to the type, and checks to see if the value has now
> become a large value.
>
> Now, it looks odd, because only one of those casts has a "__force" on
> it, but the reason for that is that casting all-ones and all-zeroes is
> ok for bitwise types (think of bitwise types as being a "collection of
> bits" - so all bits set or all bits clear are sane concepts regardless
> of any other semantics).
>
> So it's not the casts themselves that are problematic: that part works fine.
>
> But you cannot compare a random collection of bits for greater than or
> lesser than.
>
> Think of things like byte orders: you can compare two values for
> _equality_ even if they are in the wrong byte order, but you can't
> compare them for "larger than" unless you turn them into the right CPU
> byte order.
>
> Basically, a "collection of bits" doesn't have an ordering in itself,
> even if equality comparisons are ok.
>
> So yeah, is_signed_type() doesn't work for bitwise types.
>
> And I don't see a sane way to make "is_signed_type()" to work for
> bitwise types - the whole concept of signedness of "bunch of bits" is
> kind of nonsensical - so I suspect your workaround is the best we can
> do (alternatively, tracing would have to figure out a different way to
> test for signedness).
>
> Linus

Linus, thank you very much for your detailed explanation.

I would like to edit the quoted part of his commit message

> > Despite that change, sparse complains when
> > passing a bitwise type to is_signed_type(). It is not clear to me why.

as follows:

Despite that change, sparse complains when passing a bitwise type
to is_signed_type(). The reason is that in its definition below, a
comparison will be made against bitwise types, which are
random collections of bits (the casts to bitwise types themselves
are semantically valid and are not problematic):

#define is_signed_type(type) (((type)(-1)) < (__force type)1)

So, as a workaround, fix the warnings by using __field_struct() macro
that doesn't use is_signed_type() instead of __field().
...

I will try to resend the patch later unless there's a misunderstanding or
I'm missing too many points.

Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-07 23:06    [W:0.059 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site