linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] exfat: replace 'time_ms' with 'time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <006a01d613ba$e2e19e10$a8a4da30$@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:47:24 +0900
From:   "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To:     <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>
Cc:     <Mori.Takahiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>,
        <Motai.Hirotaka@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>,
        "'Sungjong Seo'" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'Matthew Wilcox'" <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] exfat: replace 'time_ms' with 'time_10ms'

> > Please leave at least 24 hours between sending new versions so that
> > you can collect all feedback relating to your change, and we don't see
> > discussion fragment between different threads.
> 
> Thanks for good advice!
> 
> > > +		ts->tv_sec += (time_10ms * 10) / 1000;
> > > +		ts->tv_nsec = (time_10ms * 10) % 1000 * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> >
> > I find this more confusing than the original.
> 
> The parentheses were intended to group conversions into milliseconds, but
> were not necessary from an "operator precedence" perspective.
> 
> 
> >
> > 		ts->tv_sec += time_10ms / 100;
> > 		ts->tv_nsec = (time_10ms % 100) * 10 * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> >
> > is easier to understand for me, not least because I don't need to worry
> > about the operator precedence between % and *.
> 
> If I use '100' for the divisor of '10ms', I find it difficult to
> understand
> the meaning of the operation.
> 
> When using '100' for the divisor, I think cs (centi-sec) is easier to
> understand than 10ms.
> Which do you prefer, time_10ms or time_cs?
Can you resend the patch again after changing to time_cs ?

> 
> 
> BR
> ---
> Kohada Tetsuhiro <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>