[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377715539.1928.45.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:45:39 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Mischa Jonker <Mischa.Jonker@...opsys.com>
Cc: Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Fix __udelay parentheses
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 20:29 +0200, Mischa Jonker wrote:
> Make sure that usecs is casted to long long, to ensure that the
> (usecs * 4295 * HZ) multiplication is 64 bit.
>
> Initially, the (usecs * 4295 * HZ) part was done as a 32 bit
> multiplication, with the result casted to 64 bit. This led to some bits
> falling off.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mischa Jonker <mjonker@...opsys.com>
> ---
> arch/arc/include/asm/delay.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/delay.h b/arch/arc/include/asm/delay.h
> index 442ce5d..8d35fe1 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/include/asm/delay.h
> +++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/delay.h
> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ static inline void __udelay(unsigned long usecs)
> /* (long long) cast ensures 64 bit MPY - real or emulated
> * HZ * 4295 is pre-evaluated by gcc - hence only 2 mpy ops
> */
> - loops = ((long long)(usecs * 4295 * HZ) *
> - (long long)(loops_per_jiffy)) >> 32;
> + loops = (((long long) usecs) * 4295 * HZ *
> + (long long) loops_per_jiffy) >> 32;
Shouldn't this be unsigned long long or u64?
Why is it >> 32 again?
The comment above it doesn't seem to match the code.
--
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