From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [2.6.25 patch] drivers/crypto/hifn_795x.c: fix 64bit division Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:59:03 +0300 Message-ID: <20080227155901.GA30642@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20080226122100.GB22699@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20080226153421.GB10717@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080226185240.GA2521@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080226160439.5941cc31.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Adrian Bunk , Martin Michlmayr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu , Ralf Baechle , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:37191 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753368AbYB0QAH (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:00:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080226160439.5941cc31.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:04:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > udelay() might be exposed to the same problem. It would be better to fix > ndelay() and udelay() rather than callers. It is reasonable to pass a u64 > into ndelay() and to expect the build to not explode. Well, if you think it is resonable to pass u64 into function, which is supposed to sleep no more than several cpu cycles. I do not want to start any kind of flame about it, but this looks like an overkill. > (Geeze macros suck) Absolutely. -- Evgeniy Polyakov