From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756207AbaIIJTW (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 05:19:22 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:47312 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754745AbaIIJTU (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 05:19:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:19:12 +0200 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Robert Richter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Robert Richter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] GICv3: Fixing 32 bit compatibility Message-ID: <20140909091912.GQ23009@pengutronix.de> References: <1410185480-5153-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <20140909080042.GO23009@pengutronix.de> <20140909091201.GA4527@rric.localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140909091201.GA4527@rric.localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::c0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:12:01AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 09.09.14 10:00:42, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:11:19PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > > > @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq) > > > smp_wmb(); > > > > > > for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, *mask) { > > > - u64 cluster_id = cpu_logical_map(cpu) & ~0xffUL; > > > + u64 cluster_id = cpu_logical_map(cpu) & ~0xffULL; > > This doesn't change anything, does it? > > It does, not in 64 bit but in 32 bit there unsigned long is 32 > bit. So, bit masks are broken if you compile a 32 bit kernel. Can you make an example where the result actually changes? > > I wonder if it would be cleaner to use (u64)0xff here. > > No, that's ULL for. This is commonly used in x86 too. I don't care much here, but I'd say ULL is to force an unsigned long long. If you want to make it obvious that you want a 64bit value, a cast to u64 makes this more clear. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |