From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/13] x86: Add functions for 64-bit
	integer arithmetic
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:21:25 -0500
Message-ID: <568BED85.2080902@oracle.com>
References: <1451531020-29964-1-git-send-email-haozhong.zhang@intel.com>
	<1451531020-29964-8-git-send-email-haozhong.zhang@intel.com>
	<568AB96C.9010008@oracle.com>
	<20160105011535.GC3619@hz-desktop.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160105011535.GC3619@hz-desktop.sh.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 01/04/2016 08:15 PM, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
> On 01/04/16 13:26, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 12/30/2015 10:03 PM, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
>>> This patch adds several functions to take multiplication, division and
>>> shifting involving 64-bit integers. Those functions are derived from
>>> Linux kernel and will be used by later patches to calculate scaling
>>> ratio and scaled TSC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>>
>> (although I not sure why you decided to change Linux' code in mul64() below)
>>
>>
>>
>>> +    c = (u64)rl.l.high + rm.l.low + rn.l.low;
>>> +    rl.l.high = c;
>>> +    c >>= 32;
>>> +    c = c + rm.l.high + rn.l.high + rh.l.low;
>>> +    rh.l.low = c;
>>> +    rh.l.high += (u32)(c >> 32);
> I took these code from my KVM patches, but it seemed it was refactored
> later and also inlined with mul_u64_u64_shr(). However, above code is
> still equivalent to the current Linux code (if we take mul64() from
> mul_u64_u64_shr() in Linux), so I think it should be fine. Or do you
> want me to make them consistent with Linux code?

Yes, it is equivalent to what's in Linux. I don't think you need to do 
anything, I was just curious why the two routines look slightly different.


-boris