Re: [RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:52 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, john stultz wrote: > > > Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed > > version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed > > issues (like in ntp.c). > > > > It

Re: [RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

Hi, On Mon, 21 May 2007, john stultz wrote: > Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed > version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed > issues (like in ntp.c). > > It probably could be optimized further, so let me know if you have any >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:52 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: Hi, On Mon, 21 May 2007, john stultz wrote: Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed issues (like in ntp.c). It probably could be

Re: [RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

Hi, On Mon, 21 May 2007, john stultz wrote: Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed issues (like in ntp.c). It probably could be optimized further, so let me know if you have any suggestions.

[RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed issues (like in ntp.c). It probably could be optimized further, so let me know if you have any suggestions. Other thoughts? thanks -john Signed-off-by:

[RFC][PATCH] do_div_signed()

Here's a quick pass at adding do_div_signed() which provides a signed version of do_div, avoiding having do_div users hack around signed issues (like in ntp.c). It probably could be optimized further, so let me know if you have any suggestions. Other thoughts? thanks -john Signed-off-by: