On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:33:19 -0700 Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com> wrote:
> >From d8237d3df222e6c5a98a74baa04bc52edf8a3677 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:14:48 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] math64: prevent double calculation of DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP()
> arguments
>
> Cause the DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(ll, d) macro to cache
> the result of (d) expression in a local variable to
> avoid double calculation, which might bring unexpected
> side effects.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com>
> ---
> include/linux/math64.h | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/math64.h b/include/linux/math64.h
> index 94af3d9c73e7..bb2c84afb80c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/math64.h
> +++ b/include/linux/math64.h
> @@ -281,6 +281,7 @@ static inline u64 mul_u64_u32_div(u64 a, u32 mul, u32
> divisor)
> }
> #endif /* mul_u64_u32_div */
>
> -#define DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(ll, d) div64_u64((ll) + (d) - 1, (d))
> +#define DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(ll, d) \
> + ({ u64 _tmp = (d); div64_u64((ll) + _tmp - 1, _tmp); })
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_MATH64_H */
Does it have to be done as a macro? A lot of these things are
implemented as nice inline C functions.
Also, most of these functions and macros return a value whereas
DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP() does not. Desirable?
(And we're quite pathetic about documenting what those return values
_are_, which gets frustrating for the poor schmucks who sit here
reviewing code all day).
