Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] serial: core: Update uart_poll_timeout() function to return unsigned long

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:19:26AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 07:26:28PM +0530, Vamshi Gajjela wrote:
> > > From: VAMSHI GAJJELA <vamshigajjela@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Please use lower case letters like I think you mean to?
> > 
> > Also, where are patches 1/3 and 2/3 of this series?  I can't do anything
> > without them as well.
> > 
> > > The function uart_fifo_timeout() returns an unsigned long value, which
> > > is the number of jiffies. Therefore, change the variable timeout in the
> > > function uart_poll_timeout() from int to unsigned long.
> > > Change the return type of the function uart_poll_timeout() from int to
> > > unsigned long to be consistent with the type of timeout values.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: VAMSHI GAJJELA <vamshigajjela@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v3:
> > > - updated description
> > > v2:
> > > - unsigned long instead of unsigned int
> > > - added () after function name in short log
> > > - updated description
> > > 
> > >  include/linux/serial_core.h | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/serial_core.h b/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > index bb6f073bc159..6916a1d7e477 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/serial_core.h
> > > @@ -773,9 +773,9 @@ static inline unsigned long uart_fifo_timeout(struct uart_port *port)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /* Base timer interval for polling */
> > > -static inline int uart_poll_timeout(struct uart_port *port)
> > > +static inline unsigned long uart_poll_timeout(struct uart_port *port)
> > >  {
> > > -	int timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port);
> > > +	unsigned long timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port);
> > >  
> > >  	return timeout > 6 ? (timeout / 2 - 2) : 1;
> > 
> > So we are now doing 64bit math?  Did that just make things slower?
> 
> That divide with a constant 2 though so I'd expect compiler to turn it 
> into a shift.

Hopefully :)

> > What bug is this actually fixing?  How have you tested this to verify it
> > works?
> 
> AFAIK this doesn't fix anything because emptying when measured in jiffies
> isn't that big number. It's just about making the types more consistent.

Ah, ok, I'll wait for a proper version to be sent as I obviously can't
take it like-this.

thanks,

greg k-h