On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday, 30 of July 2005 15:13, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > px >= n + x > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > (p-1)x >= n > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > x >= n / (p-1). > > > > > > > > The obvious solution is > > > > > > > > x = ceiling(n / (p-1)), > > > > > > > > so calc_nr should return n + ceiling(n / (p-1)), which is exactly what > > > > Michal's patch computes. > > > > > > Nice. :-) > > > > > > Could we perhaps add your proof to the Michal's patch as a comment, > > > for reference? > > > > No, thanks. It only proves that it is equivalent to old code, but says > > nothing about quality of code, and we really do not want to keep old > > code around. > > IMHO it rather says that the formula is OK and would save some time to > people reading the code for the _first_ time and trying to understand it, > but you decide. :-) It's up to you whether or not to include the proof as a comment -- you have my permission and my sign-off: Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Alan Stern
