Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] overflow: Remove is_non_negative() and is_negative()

Nicolas Schier <[email protected]> Thu, 1 Jan 2026 20:39:46 +0100

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.linux-sparse,dev.linux.lists.llvm,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-hardening,org.kernel.vger.linux-kbuild,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID	<20260101-futuristic-petrel-of-ecstasy-23db5f@lindesnes>

On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 04:10:36PM +0100, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On 20/12/2025 at 12:02, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> > The is_non_negative() and is_negative() function-like macros just
> > exist as a workaround to silence the -Wtype-limits warning. Now that
> > this warning is disabled, those two macros have lost their raison
> > d'être. Remove them.
> > 
> > This reverts commit dc7fe518b049 ("overflow: Fix -Wtype-limits
> > compilation warnings").
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Nicolas Schier <[email protected]>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <[email protected]>
> 
> So at the end, this patch got five kernel test robot reports:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> 
> All these are the same smatch warning just triggered from a different
> place. I think it is still too early to undo that workaround in
> include/linux/overflow.h, otherwise developers would be getting that
> smatch report too often.
> 
> I will send a v4 in which I will drop this patch. This basically means
> that the v4 is a revert to v1...

thanks!  I think it's a bit sad to keep code only to make some checker 
tooling happy, but for now it seems to be the right thing to do.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)