Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9fda7891-925a-1d9c-7c70-a7b040211199@yandex.ru>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:06:26 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc:     Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230601143332.255312-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru>
 <2D3D2D8E-4E7A-4B50-A1FF-486D7F6C26D4@oracle.com>
 <8ed6eb2b-fdfa-4fde-81f3-92e6b34bc509@kadam.mountain>
 <ed2f956d-632a-90e1-f2e9-91710be5f2de@yandex.ru>
 <c6c5c38b-f258-4dda-8227-5f672b37bc77@kadam.mountain>
From:   Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: fix clang-17 warning
In-Reply-To: <c6c5c38b-f258-4dda-8227-5f672b37bc77@kadam.mountain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/1/23 19:39, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> It's a false positive because the test is obviously intended for 32-bit
> longs.

I'm not an expert in compiler development, but I do not understand
"obviously intended" in this context. An input literally compares
<any unsigned 32-bit> > <max unsigned 64-bit> / 8, which is always
false, and so the compiler complains. If "obviously intended" means
"the compiler should silently optimize away this check for LP64",
I would disagree, and that's why I would like to see the confirmation
from LLVM/clang developers.

Dmitry