[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120830161532.0db909c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:15:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] linux/kernel.h: Introduce IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:30:55 -0700
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST returns a bad result for negative dividends:
> DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(-2, 2) = 0
>
> Most of the time this does not matter. However, in the hardware monitoring
> subsystem, it is sometimes used on integers which can be negative (such as
> temperatures). Introduce new macro IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST which also supports
> negative dividends.
>
Can't we just fix DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST? That will make it a bit slower
but it's not exactly a speed demon right now. And fixing
DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() might just fix other bugs that we don't know about
yet.
Also, the name IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST doesn't communicate much at all.
> +#define IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(x, divisor)( \
> +{ \
> + typeof(x) __x = x; \
> + typeof(divisor) __d = divisor; \
> + (((typeof(x))-1) >= 0 || (__x) >= 0) ? \
> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((__x), (__d)) : \
> + (((__x) - ((__d) / 2)) / (__d)); \
> +} \
> +)
And it doesn't help that the new "function" is undocumented. Yes, we
screwed up with DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(), but that doesn't mean we need to
keep screwing up!
--
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