[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7eea4ce5-8cc4-d982-57ac-ec6e8d8ba323@sandisk.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:58:11 +0200
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...el.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"y2038@...ts.linaro.org" <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
"fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org" <fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: libfc: fix seconds_since_last_reset calculation
On 06/20/2016 04:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 3:54:06 PM CEST Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 06/17/2016 05:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> - jiffies_to_timespec(jiffies, &v0);
>>> - jiffies_to_timespec(lport->boot_time, &v1);
>>> - fc_stats->seconds_since_last_reset = (v0.tv_sec - v1.tv_sec);
>>> + fc_stats->seconds_since_last_reset = (lport->boot_time - jiffies) / HZ;
>>
>> Does this patch introduce a 64-bit division? There might still be 32-bit
>> users of this code.
>
> No, both lport->boot_time and jiffies are 'unsigned long'.
Ah, you're right. Hence:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists