Re: [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy

[Yoann Vandoorselaere]

On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 17:23, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>Well, first on sane archs which have an easily accessible, fixed
> >>frequency time counter, loops_per_jiffy should never have existed :-)
> >>
> >>Second, putting this code there means that one day somebody will
> >>inevitably try to use it outside of its domain of operation (like it
> >>happened for div64 a few months ago when I pointed out that it would not
> >>work for divisors above 65535 or so).
> > 
> > 
> > Well... it's clearly located inside kernel/cpufreq.c, so there is
> > little risk, though it may be worth a big bold comment
> 
> Hmm, in my experience people hardly ever read detailed comments even 
> when they are well-written. Perhaps if you called the function 
> imprecise_scale or coarse_scale, it might ring a bell.
> 
> Besides that functions should do one thing and do that *well*[1]. Well, 
> I'm usually not too dogmatic, but this function breaks the second rule
> beyond what I find acceptable.

At least it report *correct* result (when the old one was returning BS
because of the 32 bits integer overflow). Doing it well require per
architecture support.

 
> >>In this case a generic scaling function, while not a standard libgcc/C
> >>library feature has potentially more applications than this simple 
> >>cpufreq approximation. But I don't see very much the need for scaling a 
> >>long (64 bit on 64 bit archs) value, 32 bit would be sufficient.
> > 
> > 
> > Well... if you can write one, go on then ;) In my case, I'm happy
> > with Yoann implementation for cpufreq right now. Though I agree that
> > could ultimately be moved to arch code.

[...]

> [1] Documentation/CodingStyle, which also claims that functions should 
> be short and *sweet*. Well, I found the patch far too bitter ;-).

No wonder why you're loosing contributor with such comportment.

-- 
Yoann Vandoorselaere, http://www.prelude-ids.org

"Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and 
 more idiot-proof software, and universe, which produces more and more 
 remarkable idiots. Until now, universe leads the race"  -- R. Cook