[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170626065204.GA31609@ulmo.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:52:04 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Mariusz Skamra <mariuszx.skamra@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ktime: Simplify ktime_compare implementation
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:00:47PM +0200, Mariusz Skamra wrote:
> ktime_sub can be used here instread of two conditional checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Skamra <mariuszx.skamra@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...el.com>
> ---
> include/linux/ktime.h | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ktime.h b/include/linux/ktime.h
> index 0c8bd45..04817b1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ktime.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ktime.h
> @@ -108,11 +108,7 @@ static inline ktime_t timeval_to_ktime(struct timeval tv)
> */
> static inline int ktime_compare(const ktime_t cmp1, const ktime_t cmp2)
> {
> - if (cmp1 < cmp2)
> - return -1;
> - if (cmp1 > cmp2)
> - return 1;
> - return 0;
> + return ktime_sub(cmp1, cmp2);
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.1.4
Boot is broken on Tegra186 on next-20170623. Bisection points at this
commit and I've confirmed that reverting it also fixes the problem.
Another fix is to change the return value of ktime_compare() to ktime_t,
though I'm not sure that'd be a good alternative because it breaks with
the traditional return type of int (-1, 0, +1) for comparison functions.
It looks like the issue is with the truncation from s64 to int, as
demonstrated by this minimal test case:
--- >8 ---
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define ARRAY_SIZE(a) (sizeof(a) / sizeof((a)[0]))
typedef int64_t s64;
typedef s64 ktime_t;
#define ktime_sub(lhs, rhs) ((lhs) - (rhs))
static inline int ktime_compare(const ktime_t cmp1, const ktime_t cmp2)
{
return ktime_sub(cmp1, cmp2);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
static const ktime_t values[][2] = {
{ 0, 1 },
{ 1, 0 },
{ 0, INT64_MAX },
{ INT64_MAX, 0 },
};
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(values); i++)
printf("%ld - %ld = %ld (%d)\n", values[i][0], values[i][1],
ktime_sub(values[i][0], values[i][1]),
ktime_compare(values[i][0], values[i][1]));
return 0;
}
--- >8 ---
and the following results on x86_64:
$ gcc -O2 -g -Wall -Werror -o test test.c && ./test
0 - 1 = -1 (-1)
1 - 0 = 1 (1)
0 - 9223372036854775807 = -9223372036854775807 (1)
9223372036854775807 - 0 = 9223372036854775807 (-1)
and AArch64:
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -g -Wall -Werror -static -o test test.c && qemu-aarch64 ./test
0 - 1 = -1 (-1)
1 - 0 = 1 (1)
0 - 9223372036854775807 = -9223372036854775807 (1)
9223372036854775807 - 0 = 9223372036854775807 (-1)
Perhaps it would be best to drop this patch?
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists