From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
'Jiapeng Chong' <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: using div64_u64() instead of do_div()
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:06:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220210080603.GJ1951@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c563d78-f883-65ee-9e7b-cf44e3b238e8@wanadoo.fr>
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:15:13PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> 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.
We could mark those as __must_check functions.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-10 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-21 11:49 [PATCH] staging: pi433: using div64_u64() instead of do_div() Jiapeng Chong
2022-01-21 13:34 ` David Laight
2022-02-09 19:15 ` Christophe JAILLET
2022-02-10 8:06 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2022-02-10 9:21 ` David Laight
2022-02-10 10:42 ` Dan Carpenter
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=20220210080603.GJ1951@kadam \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=abaci@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox