Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:02:04 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     min.li.xe@renesas.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] ptp: idt82p33: optimize _idt82p33_adjfine
Message-ID: <20201105170204.GA5258@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
References: <1604505709-5483-1-git-send-email-min.li.xe@renesas.com>
 <1604505709-5483-3-git-send-email-min.li.xe@renesas.com>
 <20201104164657.GE16105@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <20201105003556.tpgvlh3ponyxzjjl@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201105003556.tpgvlh3ponyxzjjl@skbuf>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 02:35:56AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On the other hand and with all due respect, saying that it may have been
> 'buggy on some archs back in the day' and then not bringing any evidence
> is a bit of a strange claim to make.

You're right.  I made the effort to look back into the days of v3.0,
and the only thing I could find is that the 32 bit implementation of
div_s64 does extra operations and invokes an additional function call.
But the difference in performance, if any, is probably not very large.
 
> I am actively using div_s64 in drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_ptp.c
> successfully on arm and arm64.

Yeah, I see div_s64 has found its way into the ntp code, too, so it
must be fine.

Thanks,
Richard