[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx3-8LRR9aFDM-CrunSEFrSs+z_=iAZ6n-+wgNRzJ4NQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:36:14 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
katsuki.uwatoko@...hiba.co.jp,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, gangchen@...micro.com,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
karanvir.singh@...t.com, luca@...lable.com,
christopher.squires@...t.com, edwin@...lable.com,
wayne.burri@...t.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: enabling libgcc for 64-bit divisions, was Re: PROBLEM: XFS on ARM
corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Does your objection still apply if we supplied our own implementations of a
> handful of libgcc helpers?
We already do that.
Several architectures actually implement _udivdi3.
However, do_div() is actually the much simpler/better interface.
I don't think we have a single case in the kernel where we really want
the full 64/64 division, and the 64/32->64 case really is
fundamentally simpler.
This whole "do_div is so complicated" thing is just BS.
The thing that triggered Christoph to ask was a bug in the
implementation of that *simpler* interface. What makes you think that
making people implement _udivdi3 would magically avoid all such bugs?
Linus
--
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