[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250307193643.28065d2d@pumpkin>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:36:43 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, jk@...abs.org, joel@....id.au,
eajames@...ux.ibm.com, andrzej.hajda@...el.com, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
rfoss@...nel.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org,
tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, awalls@...metrocast.net,
hverkuil@...all.nl, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
vigneshr@...com, louis.peens@...igine.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
yury.norov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
alistair@...ple.id.au, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
jernej.skrabec@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] bitops: Change parity8() return type to bool
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:42:41 +0100
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 07. 03. 25, 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06. 03. 25, 17:25, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> >>> Change return type to bool for better clarity. Update the kernel doc
> >>> comment accordingly, including fixing "@value" to "@val" and adjusting
> >>> examples. Also mark the function with __attribute_const__ to allow
> >>> potential compiler optimizations.
> >>>
> >>> Co-developed-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/bitops.h | 10 +++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
> >>> index c1cb53cf2f0f..44e5765b8bec 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> >>> @@ -231,26 +231,26 @@ static inline int get_count_order_long(unsigned long l)
> >>> /**
> >>> * parity8 - get the parity of an u8 value
> >>> - * @value: the value to be examined
> >>> + * @val: the value to be examined
> >>> *
> >>> * Determine the parity of the u8 argument.
> >>> *
> >>> * Returns:
> >>> - * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity
> >>> + * false for even parity, true for odd parity
> >>
> >> This occurs somehow inverted to me. When something is in parity means that
> >> it has equal number of 1s and 0s. I.e. return true for even distribution.
> >> Dunno what others think? Or perhaps this should be dubbed odd_parity() when
> >> bool is returned? Then you'd return true for odd.
> >
> > OTOH:
> >
> > - '0' is an even number and is returned for even parity,
> > - '1' is an odd number and is returned for odd parity.
>
> Yes, that used to make sense for me. For bool/true/false, it no longer
> does. But as I wrote, it might be only me...
No me as well, I've made the same comment before.
When reading code I don't want to have to look up a function definition.
There is even scope for having parity_odd() and parity_even().
And, with the version that shifts a constant right you want to invert
the constant!
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists