[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ae171e2-1a36-4fe1-8a9f-b2b776e427a0@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 08:05:02 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@...el.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jiffies: Cast to unsigned long for secs_to_jiffies()
conversion
On 30. 01. 25, 21:14, David Laight wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:43:17 +0000
> Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> While converting users of msecs_to_jiffies(), lkp reported that some
>> range checks would always be true because of the mismatch between the
>> implied int value of secs_to_jiffies() vs the unsigned long
>> return value of the msecs_to_jiffies() calls it was replacing. Fix this
>> by casting secs_to_jiffies() values as unsigned long.
>
> Surely 'unsigned long' can't be the right type ?
> It changes between 32bit and 64bit systems.
> Either it is allowed to wrap - so should be 32bit on both,
> or wrapping is unexpected and it needs to be 64bit on both.
But jiffies are really ulong.
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists