Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:34:13 +0100
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     nsaenz@kernel.org, jim2101024@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
        robh@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'
Message-ID: <YYh+ldT5wU2s0sWY@rocinante>
References: <e6d9da2112aab2939d1507b90962d07bfd735b4c.1636273671.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e6d9da2112aab2939d1507b90962d07bfd735b4c.1636273671.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Christophe!

[...]
> This bitmap can be BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_LEGACY_NR or BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR long.

Ahh.  OK.  Given this an option would be to: do nothing (keep current
status quo); allocate memory dynamically passing the "msi->nr" after it
has been set accordingly; use BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR and waste a little bit
of space.

Perhaps moving to using the DECLARE_BITMAP() would be fine in this case
too, at least to match style of other drivers more closely.

Jim, Florian and Lorenzo - is this something that would be OK with you,
or you would rather keep things as they were?

> Addresses-Coverity: "Out-of-bounds access (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON)"

This tag would have to be written as:

  Addresses-Coverity: ("Out-of-bounds access (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON)")

[...]
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP		(used, BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR);

Probably not the most elegant solution, but I would keep it as:

  DECLARE_BITMAP(used, BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR);

Otherwise aligning either before or after the open bracket will cause
either an error or a warning issued by checkpatch.pl accordingly about
the style.  Other users of this (a vast majoirty) macro don't do any
specific alignment at large

[...]
> +	/*
> +	 * Sanity check to make sure that the 'used' bitmap in struct brcm_msi
> +	 * is large enough.
> +	 */
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_LEGACY_NR > BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR);

A healthy paranoia, I see. :-)

	Krzysztof