Re: [PATCH 1/4] introduce explicit signed/unsigned 64bit divide

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:59:27 +0100 (CET)
Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > > +static inline u64 div_u64_rem(u64 dividend, u32 divisor, u32 *remainder)
> >                  ^       ^       ^             ^            ^
> > 		 s64 div_s64_rem s64           s32          s32
> 
> Thanks for noticing.
> I'm quite sure I fixed this before, as I compiled this also for 
> 64bit, so I'm not sure how it got back. Anyway, new patch below.

I think what happened was that [patch 3/4] fixed this up.  Of course,
that patch doesn't apply on this updated [1/4].  I _could_ just take the
old [1/4] (I think), but I don't know if that wouild be bisection-friendly.

Anyway, please redo&resend?  Thanks.



Please have a think about that code in arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c too.  It is
painful to see remote subsystems (re)implementing generic infrastructure.
Can KVM use existing code?  Should we hoist what KVM has done there into
generic code?  Did it have to use a(nother bleeding) macro?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/