Re: [PATCH v2] iwlwifi: mvm: Use div_s64 instead of do_div in iwl_mvm_debug_range_resp

2019-02-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 1:14 AM Nick Desaulniers
 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:08 AM Nathan Chancellor  
> wrote:

> One thing I'm curious about, is "why does do_div exist?" When should I
> use do_div vs div_u64 (not div_s64 as is used in this patch)?

I think do_div() is mostly historic, we've had it since the early days
when C compilers were not as good with inline functions. The various
other versions are regular functions, and I tend to prefer them for new
code, but do_div() is widely known and documented, so I have little
hope of it going away any time soon.

   Arnd


Re: [PATCH v2] iwlwifi: mvm: Use div_s64 instead of do_div in iwl_mvm_debug_range_resp

2019-02-21 Thread Luciano Coelho
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:13 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:08 AM Nathan Chancellor
>  wrote:
> > Clang warns:
> > 
> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c:465:2:
> > warning:
> > comparison of distinct pointer types ('typeof ((rtt_avg)) *' (aka
> > 'long
> > long *') and 'uint64_t *' (aka 'unsigned long long *'))
> > [-Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types]
> > do_div(rtt_avg, );
> > ^
> > include/asm-generic/div64.h:222:28: note: expanded from macro
> > 'do_div'
> > (void)(((typeof((n)) *)0) == ((uint64_t *)0));  \
> >~~ ^  ~~~
> > 1 warning generated.
> > 
> > do_div expects an unsigned dividend. Use div_s64, which expects a
> > signed
> > dividend.
> > 
> > Fixes: 937b10c0de68 ("iwlwifi: mvm: add debug prints for FTM")
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/372
> > Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann 
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor 
> > ---
> > 
> > v1 -> v2:
> > 
> > * Fix logic (as the return value of div{,64}_s64 must be used),
> > thanks
> >   to Arnd for the review.
> 
> oh boy, sorry I missed that in the initial code review, thanks Arnd
> for the sharp eye!
> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers 

Thanks, guys, I really didn't pay much attention when I applied the
previous versions either.

I have applied this in our internal tree and will send it out instead
of the previous one as part of our upstreaming process.

--
Cheers,
Luca.



Re: [PATCH v2] iwlwifi: mvm: Use div_s64 instead of do_div in iwl_mvm_debug_range_resp

2019-02-21 Thread Nick Desaulniers
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:08 AM Nathan Chancellor
 wrote:
>
> Clang warns:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c:465:2: warning:
> comparison of distinct pointer types ('typeof ((rtt_avg)) *' (aka 'long
> long *') and 'uint64_t *' (aka 'unsigned long long *'))
> [-Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types]
> do_div(rtt_avg, );
> ^
> include/asm-generic/div64.h:222:28: note: expanded from macro 'do_div'
> (void)(((typeof((n)) *)0) == ((uint64_t *)0));  \
>~~ ^  ~~~
> 1 warning generated.
>
> do_div expects an unsigned dividend. Use div_s64, which expects a signed
> dividend.
>
> Fixes: 937b10c0de68 ("iwlwifi: mvm: add debug prints for FTM")
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/372
> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann 
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor 
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2:
>
> * Fix logic (as the return value of div{,64}_s64 must be used), thanks
>   to Arnd for the review.

oh boy, sorry I missed that in the initial code review, thanks Arnd
for the sharp eye!
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers 

Side tangent: we see this kind of difference in APIs a lot (modifying
the parameter vs returning a new value or making a copy then modifying
that) in C++ when a call site isn't passing the explicit address of
some variable or an identifier that's clearly a pointer. Ex.

int foo;
bar(foo);

Doesn't tell you whether bar mutates foo or not without looking at the
definition of bar, as it could be:
void bar(int x);
or
void bar(int& x);

I miss the convention in Ruby of using `!` suffixes on methods to
differentiate between such cases. ex:

"hello".capitalize
vs
"hello".capitalize!

both return the same value, but the one with the ! mutates the
existing object, while the one without creates a new object.  And
that's a very standard convention throughout the standard library.
Whether or not people follow that convention is always another story.

One thing I'm curious about, is "why does do_div exist?" When should I
use do_div vs div_u64 (not div_s64 as is used in this patch)?

>
>  drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c 
> b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c
> index e9822a3ec373..94132cfd1f56 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ftm-initiator.c
> @@ -460,9 +460,7 @@ static int iwl_mvm_ftm_range_resp_valid(struct iwl_mvm 
> *mvm, u8 request_id,
>  static void iwl_mvm_debug_range_resp(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, u8 index,
>  struct cfg80211_pmsr_result *res)
>  {
> -   s64 rtt_avg = res->ftm.rtt_avg * 100;
> -
> -   do_div(rtt_avg, );
> +   s64 rtt_avg = div_s64(res->ftm.rtt_avg * 100, );
>
> IWL_DEBUG_INFO(mvm, "entry %d\n", index);
> IWL_DEBUG_INFO(mvm, "\tstatus: %d\n", res->status);
> --
> 2.21.0.rc1
>


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers