[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: use appropriate integer types for flags

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:43:39AM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> On 14/11/2018 13:22, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:08:06PM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> >> We've been dealing a number of 32/64 bits flags issues lately :
> >>
> >>   - 085603287452fc ("drm/i915: Compare user's 64b GTT offset even on 32b")
> >>   - c58281056a8b26 ("drm/i915: Mark up GTT sizes as u64")
> >>   - 83b466b1dc5f0b ("drm/i915: Mark pin flags as u64")
> >>
> >> As userspace and in particular Mesa pulls in the uAPI headers and
> >> builds up flags using the uAPI defines we should probably make those
> >> more explicitly 32/64bits aware.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >>   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> >> index e477ef8c644e..f562c4239bd8 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> >> @@ -895,12 +895,12 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 {
> >>   	 */
> >>   	__u64 offset;
> >>   
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE		 (1<<0)
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT		 (1<<1)
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE		 (1<<2)
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS (1<<3)
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED		 (1<<4)
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_PAD_TO_SIZE		 (1<<5)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE		 (1ULL<<0)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT		 (1ULL<<1)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE		 (1ULL<<2)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS (1ULL<<3)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED		 (1ULL<<4)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PAD_TO_SIZE		 (1ULL<<5)
> >>   /* The kernel implicitly tracks GPU activity on all GEM objects, and
> >>    * synchronises operations with outstanding rendering. This includes
> >>    * rendering on other devices if exported via dma-buf. However, sometimes
> >> @@ -921,14 +921,14 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 {
> >>    * explicit tracking to avoid rendering corruption. See, for example,
> >>    * I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE to order execbufs and execute them asynchronously.
> >>    */
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_ASYNC		(1<<6)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_ASYNC		(1ULL<<6)
> >>   /* Request that the contents of this execobject be copied into the error
> >>    * state upon a GPU hang involving this batch for post-mortem debugging.
> >>    * These buffers are recorded in no particular order as "user" in
> >>    * /sys/class/drm/cardN/error. Query I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_CAPTURE to see
> >>    * if the kernel supports this flag.
> >>    */
> >> -#define EXEC_OBJECT_CAPTURE		(1<<7)
> >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_CAPTURE		(1ULL<<7)
> >>   /* All remaining bits are MBZ and RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE */
> >>   #define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_CAPTURE<<1)
> >>   	__u64 flags;
> >> @@ -946,8 +946,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_fence {
> >>   	 */
> >>   	__u32 handle;
> >>   
> >> -#define I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT            (1<<0)
> >> -#define I915_EXEC_FENCE_SIGNAL          (1<<1)
> >> +#define I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT            (1UL<<0)
> >> +#define I915_EXEC_FENCE_SIGNAL          (1UL<<1)
> > UL doesn't make much sense to me. It can be 32 or 64 bits depending on
> > the architecture.
> >
> Are you suggesting ULL instead?

What's wrong with a plain u?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel