Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Alan Cox wrote: > > if (c->x86_cache_size >= 0) > > seq_printf(m, "cache size\t: %d KB\n", c->x86_cache_size); > > > > which is silly, because that really can be done with: > > > > if (c->x86_cache_size) > > > > as there is no point in printing 'cache siz

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

> if (c->x86_cache_size >= 0) > seq_printf(m, "cache size\t: %d KB\n", c->x86_cache_size); > > which is silly, because that really can be done with: > > if (c->x86_cache_size) > > as there is no point in printing 'cache size 0KB', which means > x86_cache_size can be mad

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

Hi Thomas, Quoting Thomas Gleixner : On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Add suffix ULL to constant 1024 in order to give the compiler complete information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice that this constant is used in a context that expects an expression of type u64 (64

Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Add suffix ULL to constant 1024 in order to give the compiler complete > information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice that this > constant is used in a context that expects an expression of type > u64 (64 bits, unsigned). > > The express

[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

Add suffix ULL to constant 1024 in order to give the compiler complete information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice that this constant is used in a context that expects an expression of type u64 (64 bits, unsigned). The expression c->x86_cache_size * 1024 is currently being evaluated usi