From: Dominik Brodowski <devel@brodo.de>
To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Yoann Vandoorselaere <yoann@prelude-ids.org>,
cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:51:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020822185107.A1160@brodo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D65020D.5070201@iram.es>; from paubert@iram.es on Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:23:57PM +0000
Hi,
> > Well... it's clearly located inside kernel/cpufreq.c, so there is
> > little risk, though it may be worth a big bold comment
>
> Hmm, in my experience people hardly ever read detailed comments even
> when they are well-written. Perhaps if you called the function
> imprecise_scale or coarse_scale, it might ring a bell.
First of all, it's located in include/linux/cpufreq.h [to be accessible for
arch/i386/kernel/time.c, called cpufreq_scale() which should mean that it is
only meant for CPUFreq and nothing else.
> >>In this case a generic scaling function, while not a standard libgcc/C
> >>library feature has potentially more applications than this simple
> >>cpufreq approximation. But I don't see very much the need for scaling a
> >>long (64 bit on 64 bit archs) value, 32 bit would be sufficient.
> >
> >
> > Well... if you can write one, go on then ;) In my case, I'm happy
> > with Yoann implementation for cpufreq right now. Though I agree that
> > could ultimately be moved to arch code.
>
> Ok, I'll give it a try this week-end (PPC, i386 and all 64 bit should
> archs should be trivial).
IMHO per-arch functions are really not needed. The only architectures which
have CPUFreq drivers by now are ARM and i386. This will change, hopefully;
IMHO it should be enough to include some basic limit checking in
cpufreq_scale().
Dominik
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-22 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-22 13:02 [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 12:12 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 14:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 15:23 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 15:59 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 17:22 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffycalculation george anzinger
2002-08-22 16:51 ` Dominik Brodowski [this message]
2002-08-22 19:35 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 17:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2002-08-22 18:02 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 20:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-22 9:50 Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 10:21 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 13:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020822185107.A1160@brodo.de \
--to=devel@brodo.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paubert@iram.es \
--cc=yoann@prelude-ids.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.