[PATCH 2/2] bitfield: Ensure the return value of type##_replace_bits() is checked
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Tue Jul 8 02:45:50 PDT 2025
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:42:06 +0100,
Ben Horgan <ben.horgan at arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Yury,
>
> On 7/7/25 17:31, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 02:57:29PM +0100, Ben Horgan wrote:
> >> As type##_replace_bits() has no side effects it is only useful if its
> >> return value is checked. Add __must_check to enforce this usage. To have
> >> the bits replaced in-place typep##_replace_bits() can be used instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan at arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/bitfield.h | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> index 6d9a53db54b6..39333b80d22b 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> @@ -195,8 +195,8 @@ static __always_inline __##type type##_encode_bits(base v, base field) \
> >> __field_overflow(); \
> >> return to((v & field_mask(field)) * field_multiplier(field)); \
> >> } \
> >> -static __always_inline __##type type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \
> >> - base val, base field) \
> >> +static __always_inline __##type __must_check type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \
> >> + base val, base field) \
> >> { \
> >> return (old & ~to(field)) | type##_encode_bits(val, field); \
> >> } \
> >
> > So, would it make sense to mark _encode_bits() and _get_bits() as
> > __must_check as well? At least from the point of unification, it
> > would.
> Could do. It seems less important as there are no obvious foot-guns
> that these would guards against. Would you like me to add this in a
> v2?
> >
> > How would we move this - with my bitmap-for next or with arm branch?
>
> I'm not familiar with the branch machinery so can't comment on this.
The first patch will definitely go in via the KVM/arm64 tree, probably
as a fix for 6.16.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list