AW: [PATCH][next] iommu/mediatek: Fix unsigned domid comparison with less than zero
From: Walter Harms <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-09 11:05:05
Also in:
kernel-janitors, linux-iommu, linux-mediatek, lkml
I second that ... Having i unsigned violates the rule of "least surprise". If you need it unsigned make it clearly visible, also adding a simple comment may help. jm2c, wh ________________________________________ Von: Dan Carpenter [off-list ref] Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Februar 2021 10:19:23 An: Will Deacon Cc: Colin King; Joerg Roedel; Matthias Brugger; Anan sun; Yong Wu; Chao Hao; Tomasz Figa; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Betreff: Re: [PATCH][next] iommu/mediatek: Fix unsigned domid comparison with less than zero On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:25:58AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 01:59:36PM +0000, Colin King wrote:quoted
From: Colin Ian King <redacted> Currently the check for domid < 0 is always false because domid is unsigned. Fix this by making it signed. Addresses-CoverityL ("Unsigned comparison against 0")Typo here ('L' instead of ':')quoted
Fixes: ab1d5281a62b ("iommu/mediatek: Add iova reserved function") Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <redacted> --- drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c index 0ad14a7604b1..823d719945b2 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c@@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ static void mtk_iommu_get_resv_regions(struct device *dev, struct list_head *head) { struct mtk_iommu_data *data = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev); - unsigned int domid = mtk_iommu_get_domain_id(dev, data->plat_data), i; + int domid = mtk_iommu_get_domain_id(dev, data->plat_data), i;Not sure if it's intentional, but this also makes 'i' signed. It probably should remain 'unsigned' to match 'iova_region_nr' in 'struct mtk_iommu_plat_data'.
iova_region_nr is either 1 or 5 so unsigned doesn't matter. I once almost introduced a bug where the iterator was supposed to be size_t. I fixed a bug by making it signed but I ended up introducing a new bug. But generally that's pretty rare. The more common case is that making iterators unsigned introduces bugs. It's better to default to "int i;" and if more complicated types are required that should stand out. "size_t pg_idx;" or whatever. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel