Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:24:38 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][PATCH] better compat_jiffies_to_clock_t |
| |
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:14:07 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote: > > I don't like using "long long" and divisions. > > Since this code is currently only used for 64-bit targets, is there any > reason to use "long long" at all, and not just use "long"? I can see a > 64-bit target where "long long" would be 128 bits, and this would do the > wrong thing.
I have no problem with just long. David Mosberger suggested the "long long" because it would always be the longest integer type and therefore overflow less often (if at all). But for now, you are right.
New patch attached.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
diff -ruN 2.5.52-32bit.base/include/linux/compat.h 2.5.52-32bit.clock/include/linux/compat.h --- 2.5.52-32bit.base/include/linux/compat.h 2002-12-16 14:49:54.000000000 +1100 +++ 2.5.52-32bit.clock/include/linux/compat.h 2002-12-17 15:20:18.000000000 +1100 @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT #include <linux/stat.h> +#include <linux/param.h> /* for HZ */ #include <asm/compat.h> -#define compat_jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((x) / (HZ / COMPAT_USER_HZ)) +#define compat_jiffies_to_clock_t(x) \ + (((unsigned long)(x) * COMPAT_USER_HZ) / HZ) struct compat_utimbuf { compat_time_t actime; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |