lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [GIT] Networking
Date
> From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 03 November 2015 20:45
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > result = add_overflow(
> > mul_overflow(sec, SEC_CONVERSION, &overflow),
> > mul_overflow(nsec, NSEC_CONVERSION, &overflow),
> > &overflow);
> >
> > return overflow ? MAX_JIFFIES : result;
>
> Thinking more about this example, I think the gcc interface for
> multiplication overflow is fine.
>
> It would end up something like
>
> if (mul_overflow(sec, SEC_CONVERSION, &sec))
> return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
> if (mul_overflow(nsec, NSEC_CONVERSION, &nsec))
> return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
> sum = sec + nsec;
> if (sum < sec || sum > MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET)
> return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
> return sum;
>
> and that doesn't look horribly ugly to me.

If mul_overflow() is a real function you've just forced some of the
values out to memory, generating a 'clobber' for all memory
(unless 'strict-aliasing' is enabled) and making a mess of other
optimisations.
(If it is a static inline that might not happen.)

If you assume that no one is stupid enough to multiply very large
values by 1 and not get an error you could have mul_overflow()
return the largest prime if the multiply overflowed.

David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-06 16:41    [W:0.189 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site