[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0908031121080.8435@pc-004.diku.dk>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:21:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Kurt Garloff <garloff@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drivers/scsi: Use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
> >
> > The kernel.h macro DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST performs the computation (x + d/2)/d
> > but is perhaps more readable.
> >
> > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > (http://www.emn.fr/x-info/coccinelle/)
> >
> > // <smpl>
> > @haskernel@
> > @@
> >
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> >
> > @depends on haskernel@
> > expression x,__divisor;
> > @@
> >
> > - (((x) + ((__divisor) / 2)) / (__divisor))
> > + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(x,__divisor)
> > // </smpl>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/tmscsim.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > Diff --git a/drivers/scsi/tmscsim.c b/drivers/scsi/tmscsim.c
> > index 9a42734..7322f30 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/tmscsim.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/tmscsim.c
> > @@ -1125,7 +1125,8 @@ dc390_MsgIn_set_sync (struct dc390_acb* pACB, struct dc390_srb* pSRB)
> > {
> > if (! (bval & FAST_SCSI)) wval1++;
> > printk (KERN_INFO "DC390: Target %i: Sync transfer %i.%1i MHz, Offset %i\n", pDCB->TargetID,
> > - 40/wval1, ((40%wval1)*10+wval1/2)/wval1, pDCB->SyncOffset & 0x0f);
> > + 40/wval1, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((40 % wval1) * 10, wval1),
> > + pDCB->SyncOffset & 0x0f);
> > }
> >
> > dc390_reprog (pACB, pDCB);
>
> With all my respect to these scripted clean-up efforts, I am not sure this
> really improves anything. I.e., I am not sure, that
>
> z = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(x, y);
>
> is better readable than
>
> z = (x + y / 2) / y;
>
> Besides, I do realise, that tmscsim.c indentation is dreadful (legacy
> code...) but this patch changes it further from
>
> printk("...",
> x,
> y);
>
> to
>
> printk("...",
> x,
> y);
>
> which doesn't seem like an improvement to me either. That said, this does
> compile, and I don't see why this shouldn't work, so, if we really want
> this change here's the
I will adjust the spacing in the argument to printk.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists