Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202210190108.ESC3pc3D-lkp@intel.com> <20221018202734.140489-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <Y08PVnsTw75sHfbg@smile.fi.intel.com> <Y08SGz/xGSN87ynk@zx2c4.com> <Y08TQwcY3zL3kGHR@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y08TQwcY3zL3kGHR@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:58:30 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qQAqXYR0+K=32otECgrni51Z0c38iO3h1VRM4Xf3o2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rt2x00: use explicitly signed type for clamping
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@wp.pl>,
        Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:52:43PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:40:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:27:34PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > > On some platforms, `char` is unsigned, which makes casting -7 to char
> > > > overflow, which in turn makes the clamping operation bogus. Instead,
> > > > deal with an explicit `s8` type, so that the comparison is always
> > > > signed, and return an s8 result from the function as well. Note that
> > > > this function's result is assigned to a `short`, which is always signed.
> > >
> > > Why not to use short? See my patch I just sent.
> >
> > Trying to have the most minimal change here that doesn't rock the boat.
> > I'm not out to rewrite the driver. I don't know the original author's
> > rationales. This patch here is correct and will generate the same code
> > as before on architectures where it wasn't broken.
> >
> > However, if you want your "change the codegen" patch to be taken
> > seriously, you should probably send it to the wireless maintainers like
> > this one, and they can decide. Personally, I don't really care either
> > way.
>
> I have checked the code paths there and I found no evidence that short can't be
> used. That's why my patch.

Do you have a rationale why you want to change codegen?

Jason