linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add "is_power_of

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701301648550.1147@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:50:18 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
	galak@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add "is_power_of_2" checking to log2.h.


On Jan 30 2007 09:45, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> >> Why the qualifier? Zero *is* not a power of 2, is it?
>>
>> No, it is not:
>>
>> 	In[1]:= Solve[2^n == 0, n]
>>
>> 	Out[1]= {}
>>
>> So says Mathematica5.
>
>oooookay, that's kind of like taking a sandblaster to a soup cracker.

Hehe. Well, there is a non-representable solution:

	In[2]:= 2^-Infinity
	Out[2]= 0


>seriously, though, there is the potential of breaking something with
>this change since you can see how there is some inconsistency in how
>it's done *now* just for powerpc which, in some places, defines its
>own versions of this:
>
>./arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c:
>	#define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
>./arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_rio.c:
>	#define is_power_of_2(x) (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0)
>./arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:
>	#define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
>
>note how the first and third macros *won't* consider zero a power of
>two, while the second one *will*.  hence the need for a single
>standard for all of this, just to play it safe.

Hmpf. Perhaps a second macro "is_intdivisible_by_power_of_2" or so could
catch the "am I zero or 2^n" question.


Jan
-- 
ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/