linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] iio: gts-helper: Fix division loop

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]

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:18:48 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
 Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] iio: gts-helper: Fix division loop

Hi Jonathan,

On 2/16/24 15:58, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:09 +0200
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> The loop based 64bit division may run for a long time when dividend is a
>> lot bigger than the divider. Replace the division loop by the
>> div64_u64() which implementation may be significantly faster.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>> Fixes: 38416c28e168 ("iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers")
>>
>> ---
>> This is a resend. Only change is the base which is now the v6.8-rc4 and
>> not the v6.8-rc1
> Given I'm not rushing this in, it is going via my togreg tree, so the
> rebase wasn't really helpful (thankfully didn't stop it applying).

Oh, I didn't think about it. Just thought I'll rebase to the most recent 
tag. I see the point now that you mentioned it, thanks.

> Would have been fine to send a ping response to the first posting of it.

Ok. Some maintainers like Mark prefer getting full resend instead of a 
ping because they don't keep the old messages/patches around. Reacting 
to ping would require them to go and fetch the patch from lore - while 
having full resend allows them to apply patch using their normal 
work-flow. Or, at least I think this is how Mark told me couple of years 
ago. I must admit that plenty of water has flown through the Oulu-river 
since that, so maybe this has changed also for them.

Anyways, good to know your preference, thanks!

> I was leaving some time for David or Subhajit to have time to take
> another look, but guess they are either happy with this or busy.

Ok. This is perfectly fine. I just thought that maybe the patch fell 
through the cracks and decided to re-send before I forget ... :)

> Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for
> all the normal reasons.

Thanks!

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~