From: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
To: "Pratyush Yadav" <pratyush@kernel.org>
Cc: "Tudor Ambarus" <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,
"Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,
"Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@ti.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: replace unnecessary div64_u64() with div_u64()
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:47:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D0WNIVK1DBL5.3KQOD1K2O128P@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mafs05xw0cn8v.fsf@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]
Hi,
On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:27 PM CEST, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29 2024, Michael Walle wrote:
>
> > Both occurences of div64_u64() just have a u8 or u32 divisor. Use
> > div_u64() instead.
>
> Does this improve performance or is this only for correctness?
See function doc for div_u64():
* This is the most common 64bit divide and should be used if possible,
* as many 32bit archs can optimize this variant better than a full 64bit
* divide.
> Patch LGTM otherwise.
>
> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
>
> BTW, I also noticed that there is a do_div() call in spi_nor_write()
> that also uses a u64 dividend and u32 divisor. I was wondering why it
> uses do_div() and not div_u64() (I am not sure what the difference
> between the two is) but I suppose it doesn't matter much since your
> spring cleaning series will delete that code anyway.
do_div() is a macro and is modifying the dividend in place, whereas
div_u64() will return it. do_div() is using u32 for the divisor
anyway.
-michael
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 297 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-29 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-29 12:11 [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: replace unnecessary div64_u64() with div_u64() Michael Walle
2024-04-29 13:27 ` Pratyush Yadav
2024-04-29 13:47 ` Michael Walle [this message]
2024-04-29 14:42 ` Pratyush Yadav
2024-04-30 15:45 ` Pratyush Yadav
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=D0WNIVK1DBL5.3KQOD1K2O128P@kernel.org \
--to=mwalle@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=tudor.ambarus@linaro.org \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/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