diff mbox series

[2/2] drm/i915: Avoid -Wconstant-logical-operand in nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout()

Message ID 20230718-nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout-constant-logical-operand-v1-2-36ed8fc8faea@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Avoid -Wconstant-logical-operand in nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout() | expand

Commit Message

Nathan Chancellor July 18, 2023, 9:44 p.m. UTC
A proposed update to clang's -Wconstant-logical-operand to warn when the
left hand side is a constant shows the following instance in
nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout() when NSEC_PER_SEC is not a multiple of HZ,
such as CONFIG_HZ=300:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: warning: use of logical '&&' with constant operand [-Wconstant-logical-operand]
    189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
        |             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
    189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
        |                               ^~
        |                               &
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: remove constant to silence this warning
  1 warning generated.

Turn this into an explicit comparison against zero to make the
expression a boolean to make it clear this should be a logical check,
not a bitwise one.

Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142609
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Tvrtko Ursulin July 20, 2023, 8:43 a.m. UTC | #1
On 18/07/2023 22:44, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> A proposed update to clang's -Wconstant-logical-operand to warn when the
> left hand side is a constant shows the following instance in
> nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout() when NSEC_PER_SEC is not a multiple of HZ,
> such as CONFIG_HZ=300:
> 
>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: warning: use of logical '&&' with constant operand [-Wconstant-logical-operand]
>      189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
>          |             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
>      189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
>          |                               ^~
>          |                               &
>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: remove constant to silence this warning
>    1 warning generated.
> 
> Turn this into an explicit comparison against zero to make the
> expression a boolean to make it clear this should be a logical check,
> not a bitwise one.

So -Wconstant-logical-operand only triggers when it is a constant but 
not zero constant? Why does that make sense is not a kludge to avoid too 
much noise?

Personally, it all feels a bit over the top as a warning,  since code in 
both cases should optimise away. And we may end up papering over it if 
it becomes a default.

Then again this patch IMO does make the code more readable, so I am 
happy to take this one via our tree. Or either give ack to bring it in 
via drm-misc-next:

Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Let me know which route works best.

Regards,

Tvrtko

> Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142609
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> index 4a33ad2d122b..d4b918fb11ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ i915_gem_object_wait(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
>   static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
>   {
>   	/* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
> -	if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
> +	if ((NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ) != 0 &&
>   	    div_u64(n, NSEC_PER_SEC) >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ)
>   		return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
>   
>
Nathan Chancellor July 20, 2023, 3:16 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 09:43:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 18/07/2023 22:44, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > A proposed update to clang's -Wconstant-logical-operand to warn when the
> > left hand side is a constant shows the following instance in
> > nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout() when NSEC_PER_SEC is not a multiple of HZ,
> > such as CONFIG_HZ=300:
> > 
> >    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: warning: use of logical '&&' with constant operand [-Wconstant-logical-operand]
> >      189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
> >          |             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
> >    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
> >      189 |         if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
> >          |                               ^~
> >          |                               &
> >    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c:189:24: note: remove constant to silence this warning
> >    1 warning generated.
> > 
> > Turn this into an explicit comparison against zero to make the
> > expression a boolean to make it clear this should be a logical check,
> > not a bitwise one.
> 
> So -Wconstant-logical-operand only triggers when it is a
> constant but not zero constant? Why does that make sense is not
> a kludge to avoid too much noise?

Yes, the warning purposefully does not trigger when the constant is a 1
or 0 (as those are usually indicative of an intentional logical
operation):

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/dfdfd306cfaf54fbc43e2d5eb36489dac3eb9976/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp#L13917-L13919

In this case, it is 100, so I kind of understand why this might be
ambiguous to the compiler.

> Personally, it all feels a bit over the top as a warning,
> since code in both cases should optimise away. And we may end

I do not necessarily disagree, as you can see from the differential
review that I linked in the message, but I also understand it is a fine
line to tread when writing compiler warnings between wanting to catch
as many potential problems as possible and having too much noise for
developers to sift through. I think this is erring on the side of
caution.

> up papering over it if it becomes a default.

diagtool tree tells me this warning is already on by default.

> Then again this patch IMO does make the code more readable, so

I think so too.

> I am happy to take this one via our tree. Or either give ack to
> bring it in via drm-misc-next:
> 
> Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> 
> Let me know which route works best.

Thanks for the feedback! Either route is fine with me but if the v3d
patch is going to go in via drm-misc-next, it seems like it would not be
too much trouble to push this one with it.

Cheers,
Nathan
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
index 4a33ad2d122b..d4b918fb11ce 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@  i915_gem_object_wait(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
 {
 	/* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
-	if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
+	if ((NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ) != 0 &&
 	    div_u64(n, NSEC_PER_SEC) >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ)
 		return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;