On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:53:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 11:35 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:21:21PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > So, _either_ logical OR or addition
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 11:35 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:21:21PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > So, _either_ logical OR or addition works.
> > >
> > > If we _did_ end up with a PHYS_OFFSET with bits le
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:21:21PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:21:28AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> > > Great hit Joe :)
> > >
> > > Sometimes i am really surprised what code can be found
> > > in the kern
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:21:28AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> > Great hit Joe :)
> >
> > Sometimes i am really surprised what code can be found
> > in the kernal and it is still working.
> > Having no clue of the code i suspect somebody tr
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:21:28AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> Great hit Joe :)
>
> Sometimes i am really surprised what code can be found
> in the kernal and it is still working.
> Having no clue of the code i suspect somebody tries to
> check is mask outside the range it should read
> PHYS_OFFS
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 09:21 +0100, walter harms wrote:
> Am 29.01.2013 19:03, schrieb Joe Perches:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 18:49 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> How about the following (from today's linux-next). They appear to be
> >> trying to do the same calculation, once with + and once with
Am 29.01.2013 19:03, schrieb Joe Perches:
> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 18:49 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> How about the following (from today's linux-next). They appear to be
>> trying to do the same calculation, once with + and once with |.
>
> (cc'ing the original developer and Russell King)
>
>
The following rule looks promising:
@r@
constant c;
identifier i;
expression e;
@@
(
e | c@i
|
e & c@i
|
e |= c@i
|
e &= c@i
)
@@
constant r.c,c1;
identifier i1;
expression e;
@@
*c1@i1 + c
That is, the sum of two constants where at least one of them has been used
with & or |.
julia
--
To uns
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 18:49 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> How about the following (from today's linux-next). They appear to be
> trying to do the same calculation, once with + and once with |.
(cc'ing the original developer and Russell King)
Likely the it8152_pci_platform_notify uses should use +
How about the following (from today's linux-next). They appear to be
trying to do the same calculation, once with + and once with |.
arch/arm/common/it8152.c
int dma_set_coherent_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
{
if (mask >= PHYS_OFFSET + SZ_64M - 1)
return 0;
Here are the warnings for yesterday's linux-next (next-20130128).
regards,
dan carpenter
arch/x86/crypto/crc32-pclmul_glue.c:66 crc32_pclmul_le() warn: bit mask
'SCALE_F_MASK' used for math 'p + (16 - 1)'
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c:155 threshold_restart_bank() warn: bit
mask 'THRESHOL
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:19 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:55 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
[]
> > > I wonder if there's a way to write a coccinelle patch to find places
> > > where we do arithmetic operations on bitmasks
[]
> If the definition of a bitmask is a
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:55 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:19:47 +0300, Dan Carpenter said:
> >
> > > Yeah. I think it would be, but adding bitflags together instead of
> > > doing bitwise ORs is very common as well.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
