[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3_2JfEOncxwRfV1qGiMcsxQu+=N6gnXnu04fLGok7mQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:11:44 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Karol Herbst <karolherbst@...il.com>
Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
ML nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] [RESEND] drm/nouveau/clk: fix gcc-7
-Wint-in-bool-context warning
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Karol Herbst <karolherbst@...il.com> wrote:
>> In this instance, I think using multiplication is more intuitive
>> than '&&', so I'm adding a comparison to zero instead to shut up
>> the warning. To further improve readability, I also make the
>> error case indented and leave the normal case as the final 'return'
>> statement.
>>
>
> I think to make perfectly clear why this check is done, we simply
> should precompute the denominator and do something like this:
>
> int denominator = M * P
> if (denominator == 0)
> return 0;
> return sclk * N / denominator;
>
> but with a better name for "denominator".
I don't know what M and P actually are in this function, so I couldn't
come up with a much better name either, how about simply 'divisor'?
> I even imagine, that there
> are some macros in the kernel for dealing with something like this
> already, so that we could do instead:
>
> return AWESOME_DIV_MACRO(sclk * N, M * P)
I don't think that exists, the behavior for divide-by-zero really
depends a lot on the context, and returning zero is probably
often not a good solution.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists