On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:30:55 -0700
Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST returns a bad result for negative dividends:
> DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(-2, 2) = 0
>
> Most of the time this does not matter. However, in the hardware monitoring
> subsystem, it is sometimes used on integers which can be negative (such as
> temperatures). Introduce new macro IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST which also supports
> negative dividends.
>
Can't we just fix DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST? That will make it a bit slower
but it's not exactly a speed demon right now. And fixing
DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() might just fix other bugs that we don't know about
yet.
Also, the name IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST doesn't communicate much at all.
> +#define IDIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(x, divisor)( \
> +{ \
> + typeof(x) __x = x; \
> + typeof(divisor) __d = divisor; \
> + (((typeof(x))-1) >= 0 || (__x) >= 0) ? \
> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((__x), (__d)) : \
> + (((__x) - ((__d) / 2)) / (__d)); \
> +} \
> +)
And it doesn't help that the new "function" is undocumented. Yes, we
screwed up with DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(), but that doesn't mean we need to
keep screwing up!
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
