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, 22 Apr 2021 09:56:45 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Cc:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] MIPS: Avoid DIVU in `__div64_32' is result would be
 zero
Message-ID: <20210422075645.GA5996@alpha.franken.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2104200044060.44318@angie.orcam.me.uk>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2104200331110.44318@angie.orcam.me.uk>
 <284CBC37-0F4F-4077-A172-7E47C90B8B43@goldelico.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2104211810200.44318@angie.orcam.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2104211810200.44318@angie.orcam.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:16:18PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> 
> > > We already check the high part of the divident against zero to avoid the 
> > 
> > nit-picking: s/divident/dividend/
> 
>  Umm, I find this embarassing (and I hesitated reaching for a dictionary 
> to double-check the spelling!).  Indeed why would this be different from 
> subtrahend or minuend?
> 
>  Thomas, as this mistake has spread across three out of these patches,
> both in change descriptions and actual code, would you mind dropping the 
> series from mips-next altogether and I'll respin the series with all 
> these issues corrected?

I'm sorry, but I don't rebase mips-next and the patches have been pushed
out before I received this mail.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]