From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752977AbcBWOBt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:01:49 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54465 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752296AbcBWOBr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:01:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:01:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing: Add __print_ns_to_secs() and
 __print_ns_without_secs() helpers
Message-ID: <20160223140143.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160222212649.485719441@goodmis.org>
 <20160222212825.900322488@goodmis.org>
 <20160223124915.GQ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160223081757.59f3b698@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160223081757.59f3b698@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:17:57AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:49:15 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:26:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > > 
> > > To have nanosecond output displayed in a more human readable format, its
> > > nicer to convert it to a seconds format (XXX.YYYYYYYYY). The problem is that
> > > to do so, the numbers must be divided by NSEC_PER_SEC, and moded too. But as
> > > these numbers are 64 bit, this can not be done simply with '/' and '%'
> > > operators, but must use do_div() instead.  
> > 
> > Would not div_[us]64_rem() make more sense? It would typically result in
> > just the one division, instead of two.
> 
> The problem is, how do you do that in a printf() statement?
> 
> We have "%llu.%09ul" which is two arguments in the printf(). And the
> values we are processing can't be modified. Which is why the macro uses
> ({ }) and creates a temp variable.

Hurm,. yes that's not something easily done. We need a temporary limited
in scope to the printf statement, and C doesn't really do that.