Thank you for the feedback!
would you like to resend keeping the buffer-overflow fix but leaving out the signed-to-unsigned conversion?
I will make a second version of the patch, without conversion as it is intentional.
However, the signed output is intentional. The idea is that if the timekeeping code is confused enough to run the jiffies counter backwards, we see a small negative number rather than a huge positive number. For example, -132 is immediately obvious, while the 64-bit unsigned equivalent of 18446744073709551484 might not be.
I had suspicions that was the case, however, I did not find the pointers in the code or in the commit message, that it was intentional, so I assumed a mistake. Maybe, it would be a good idea for me to add a comment with intent clarification, to reduce possibility of the same confusion in the future, while I am at it? If so, should I do it in the same patch, or make a separate one?
