[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c563d78-f883-65ee-9e7b-cf44e3b238e8@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:15:13 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'Jiapeng Chong' <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: using div64_u64() instead of do_div()
Le 21/01/2022 à 14:34, David Laight a écrit :
> From: Jiapeng Chong
>> Sent: 21 January 2022 11:50
>> Subject: [PATCH] staging: pi433: using div64_u64() instead of do_div()
>>
>> Clean the following coccicheck warning:
>>
>> ./drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c:286:1-7: WARNING: do_div() does a
>> 64-by-32 division, please consider using div64_u64 instead.
>
> That is one of patchcheck's worse warnings.
>
> You need to check the domain of the divisor, not its type.
>
> do_div() exists to avoid expensive 64bit divides when the
> divisor is small.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
>
Moreover, the patch is broken by itself.
See [1] were it was already reported that do_div() and div64_u64() don't
have the same calling convention.
Looks that div64_u64() and div64_ul() works the same way.
CJ
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20211117112559.jix3hmx7uwqmuryg@pengutronix.de/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists