[PATCH linux-next] net/dccp/timer.c: use 'u64' instead of 's64' to avoid compiler's warning

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>
---
 net/dccp/timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/dccp/timer.c b/net/dccp/timer.c
index 16f0b22..1cd46a3 100644
--- a/net/dccp/timer.c
+++ b/net/dccp/timer.c

@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static ktime_t dccp_timestamp_seed;
  */
 u32 dccp_timestamp(void)
 {
-	s64 delta = ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);
+	u64 delta = (u64)ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);
 
 	do_div(delta, 10);
 	return delta;

-- 
1.9.2.459.g68773ac

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

Do you assume that delta should be very small?
Otherwise, return value will be different if data type is changed.

 
 	do_div(delta, 10);
 	return delta;
-- 
1.9.2.459.g68773ac

On 05/22/2014 08:26 AM, 管雪涛 wrote:

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

quoted

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>
---
 net/dccp/timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/dccp/timer.c b/net/dccp/timer.c
index 16f0b22..1cd46a3 100644
--- a/net/dccp/timer.c
+++ b/net/dccp/timer.c

@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static ktime_t dccp_timestamp_seed;
  */
 u32 dccp_timestamp(void)
 {
-	s64 delta = ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);
+	u64 delta = (u64)ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);

Do you assume that delta should be very small?
Otherwise, return value will be different if data type is changed.

'u64' is a very very large number. after calculation, if it is based on
nano second (although I am not quite sure whether it is based on it).

        a hour,            3,600,000,000,000ns
        a day,            90,000,000,000,000ns
        a year,       50,000,000,000,000,000ns
        10 years,    500,000,000,000,000,000ns
        100 years, 5,000,000,000,000,000,000ns
        4G * 4G = 16,000,000,000,000,000,000ns

So we can assume it will never overflow for 'u64'.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

On 05/22/2014 08:26 AM, 管雪涛 wrote:

quoted

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

quoted

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>
---
 net/dccp/timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/dccp/timer.c b/net/dccp/timer.c
index 16f0b22..1cd46a3 100644
--- a/net/dccp/timer.c
+++ b/net/dccp/timer.c

@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static ktime_t dccp_timestamp_seed;
  */
 u32 dccp_timestamp(void)
 {
-	s64 delta = ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);
+	u64 delta = (u64)ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);

Do you assume that delta should be very small?
Otherwise, return value will be different if data type is changed.

'u64' is a very very large number. after calculation, if it is based on
nano second (although I am not quite sure whether it is based on it).

        a hour,            3,600,000,000,000ns
        a day,            90,000,000,000,000ns
        a year,       50,000,000,000,000,000ns
        10 years,    500,000,000,000,000,000ns
        100 years, 5,000,000,000,000,000,000ns
        4G * 4G = 16,000,000,000,000,000,000ns

So we can assume it will never overflow for 'u64'.

However, return value of dccp_timestamp function is u32.

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed

On 05/22/2014 09:06 AM, 管雪涛 wrote:

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

quoted

On 05/22/2014 08:26 AM, 管雪涛 wrote:

quoted

----- Chen Gang [off-list ref] 写道：

quoted

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>
---
 net/dccp/timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/dccp/timer.c b/net/dccp/timer.c
index 16f0b22..1cd46a3 100644
--- a/net/dccp/timer.c
+++ b/net/dccp/timer.c

@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static ktime_t dccp_timestamp_seed;
  */
 u32 dccp_timestamp(void)
 {
-	s64 delta = ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);
+	u64 delta = (u64)ktime_us_delta(ktime_get_real(), dccp_timestamp_seed);

Do you assume that delta should be very small?
Otherwise, return value will be different if data type is changed.

'u64' is a very very large number. after calculation, if it is based on
nano second (although I am not quite sure whether it is based on it).

        a hour,            3,600,000,000,000ns
        a day,            90,000,000,000,000ns
        a year,       50,000,000,000,000,000ns
        10 years,    500,000,000,000,000,000ns
        100 years, 5,000,000,000,000,000,000ns
        4G * 4G = 16,000,000,000,000,000,000ns

So we can assume it will never overflow for 'u64'.

However, return value of dccp_timestamp function is u32.

After check the function comments.

/**
 * dccp_timestamp  -  10s of microseconds time source
 * Returns the number of 10s of microseconds since loading DCCP. This is native
 * DCCP time difference format (RFC 4340, sec. 13).
 * Please note: This will wrap around about circa every 11.9 hours.
 */

So, it is still acceptable, although it is truncated into 'u32' before return.

quoted

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed

-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed

From: Chen Gang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:34 +0800

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>

Applied to net-next, thanks.

But that type check in include/asm-generic/div64.h is bogus, it should
be checking sizeof(X) == 8 rather than the type thing, it just wants to
make sure that the value is 64-bit regardless of it's signedness.

The arch local implementations do not do this, and that's why very few
other people notice this warning.

----- David Miller [off-list ref] 写道：

From: Chen Gang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:34 +0800

quoted

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>

Applied to net-next, thanks.

But that type check in include/asm-generic/div64.h is bogus, it should
be checking sizeof(X) == 8 rather than the type thing, it just wants to
make sure that the value is 64-bit regardless of it's signedness.

The arch local implementations do not do this, and that's why very few
other people notice this warning.

Arch-dependent codes implement it with unsigned long long type.
And, every warning should not be ignored.

On 05/23/2014 07:58 AM, 管雪涛 wrote:

----- David Miller [off-list ref] 写道：

quoted

From: Chen Gang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:34 +0800

quoted

'dccp_timestamp_seed' is initialized once by ktime_get_real() in
dccp_timestamping_init(). It is always less than ktime_get_real()
in dccp_timestamp().

Then, ktime_us_delta() in dccp_timestamp() will always return positive
number. So can use manual type cast to let compiler and do_div() know
about it to avoid warning.

The related warning (with allmodconfig under unicore32):

    CC [M]  net/dccp/timer.o
  net/dccp/timer.c: In function ‘dccp_timestamp’:
  net/dccp/timer.c:285: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <redacted>

Applied to net-next, thanks.

Thank you for your work.

quoted

But that type check in include/asm-generic/div64.h is bogus, it should
be checking sizeof(X) == 8 rather than the type thing, it just wants to
make sure that the value is 64-bit regardless of it's signedness.

The arch local implementations do not do this, and that's why very few
other people notice this warning.

Arch-dependent codes implement it with unsigned long long type.
And, every warning should not be ignored.

Yeah, we have to let do_div() no touch (especially for 32-bit machine,
which the highest bit is checked). The related code in
"include/asm-generic/div64.h":

 23 #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
 24
 25 # define do_div(n,base) ({                                      \
 26         uint32_t __base = (base);                               \
 27         uint32_t __rem;                                         \
 28         __rem = ((uint64_t)(n)) % __base;                       \
 29         (n) = ((uint64_t)(n)) / __base;                         \
 30         __rem;                                                  \
 31  })
 32
 33 #elif BITS_PER_LONG == 32
 34
 35 extern uint32_t __div64_32(uint64_t *dividend, uint32_t divisor);
 36
 37 /* The unnecessary pointer compare is there
 38  * to check for type safety (n must be 64bit)
 39  */
 40 # define do_div(n,base) ({                              \
 41         uint32_t __base = (base);                       \
 42         uint32_t __rem;                                 \
 43         (void)(((typeof((n)) *)0) == ((uint64_t *)0));  \
 44         if (likely(((n) >> 32) == 0)) {                 \
 45                 __rem = (uint32_t)(n) % __base;         \
 46                 (n) = (uint32_t)(n) / __base;           \
 47         } else                                          \
 48                 __rem = __div64_32(&(n), __base);       \
 49         __rem;                                          \
 50  })


And for division operation, architectures are signed/unsigned
sensitive, e.g. div_u64() and div_s64(), they are different.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed