mbox series

[0/3] media: static-analyzers: Fix 6.12-rc1 cocci warnings

Message ID 20240927-cocci-6-12-v1-0-a318d4e6a19d@chromium.org
Headers show
Series media: static-analyzers: Fix 6.12-rc1 cocci warnings | expand

Message

Ricardo Ribalda Sept. 27, 2024, 9:42 a.m. UTC
This patchset introduces fixes for all the new warnings introduced in
Linux 6.12-rc1

Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
---
Ricardo Ribalda (3):
      media: ti: cal: Use str_up_down()
      staging: media: ipu3:Use str_down_up()
      media: atomisp: Use max() macros

 drivers/media/platform/ti/cal/cal-camerarx.c    | 2 +-
 drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css.c           | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 075dbe9f6e3c21596c5245826a4ee1f1c1676eb8
change-id: 20240927-cocci-6-12-4c571bc8e9dd

Best regards,

Comments

Hans Verkuil Sept. 27, 2024, 10 a.m. UTC | #1
On 27/09/2024 11:42, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> The max() macro produce nicer code and also fixes the following cocci
> errors:
> 
> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h:40:17-18: WARNING opportunity for max()
> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h:50:17-18: WARNING opportunity for max()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h
> index 8ba65161f7a9..9642506d2388 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/sh_css_frac.h
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static inline int sDIGIT_FITTING(int v, int a, int b)
>  	int fit_shift = sFRACTION_BITS_FITTING(a) - b;
>  
>  	v >>= sSHIFT;
> -	v >>= fit_shift > 0 ? fit_shift : 0;
> +	v >>= max(fit_shift, 0);

Does the warning go away if you change this to:

	if (fit_shift > 0)
		v >>= fit_shift;

Using 'max' for a shift is a bit weird in my opinion.
Also this change was done to reduce the min/max calls, so introducing
a new max call feels odd (although it should be fine).

Note that I think those cocci warnings should perhaps be ignored or
dropped. In part because of the huge macro expansion of min and max, but
also I often find the code that is not using min or max at least as readable,
if not more.

Regards,

	Hans

>  
>  	return clamp_t(int, v, sISP_VAL_MIN, sISP_VAL_MAX);
>  }
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static inline unsigned int uDIGIT_FITTING(unsigned int v, int a, int b)
>  	int fit_shift = uFRACTION_BITS_FITTING(a) - b;
>  
>  	v >>= uSHIFT;
> -	v >>= fit_shift > 0 ? fit_shift : 0;
> +	v >>= max(fit_shift, 0);
>  
>  	return clamp_t(unsigned int, v, uISP_VAL_MIN, uISP_VAL_MAX);
>  }
>