RE: [PATCH] drivers:iio:dac make expression evaluation 64-bit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:39 PM
> To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>; Hennerich, Michael
> <Michael.Hennerich@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron
> <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>; Chindris, Mihail <Mihail.Chindris@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> open list:IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS <linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> open list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:iio:dac make expression evaluation 64-bit
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:20:32AM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> wrote:
> > Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and
> then
> > passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using
> > 64-bit arithmetic and then passed.
> >
> > Fixes: 8f2b54824b ("drivers:iio:dac: Add AD3552R driver support")
> > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > index 97f13c0b9631..b03d3c7cd4c4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > @@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void
> ad3552r_calc_gain_and_offset(struct ad3552r_desc *dac, s32 ch)
> >  	dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem
> * 1000000,
> >  							65536);
> >
> > -	dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536,
> span, &rem);
> > +	dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536L,
> span, &rem);
> 
> "v_min" is relatively close to zero on a number line so this can't
> overflow.  There is no way that this change affects anything at runtime
> (except making the code a tiny tiny bit slower).
> 
> And it should be 65536LL for 32 bit systems?
>

If I'm not missing nothing obvious, 65536LL is the right thing to do...
I did not really checked, but if v_min * 65536 can never overflow, 
then yeah, this is not really "fixing" nothing.

- Nuno Sá




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [X.org]

  Powered by Linux