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;
Message-ID: <4d556ac3-b936-b99c-5a50-9add8607047d@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:28:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=c5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        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
References: <e6d9da2112aab2939d1507b90962d07bfd735b4c.1636273671.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
 <YYh+ldT5wU2s0sWY@rocinante>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YYh+ldT5wU2s0sWY@rocinante>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/7/2021 5:34 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> 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?

I would be tempted to leave the code as-is, but if we do we are probably 
bound to seeing patches like Christophe's in the future to address the 
problem, unless we place a coverity specific comment in the source tree, 
which is probably frowned upon.

The addition of the BUILD_BUG_ON() is a good addition though.
-- 
Florian