Re: [PATCH 01/10] string: introduce memweight
From: Matthew Wilcox <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-23 13:16:00
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-media, lkml
From: Matthew Wilcox <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-23 13:16:00
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-media, lkml
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:12:18PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
size_t memweight(const void *ptr, size_t bytes)
Why should this return size_t instead of unsigned long?
{
size_t w = 0;
size_t longs;
const unsigned char *bitmap = ptr;
for (; bytes > 0 && ((unsigned long)bitmap) % sizeof(long);
bytes--, bitmap++)
w += hweight8(*bitmap);
longs = bytes / sizeof(long);
BUG_ON(longs >= INT_MAX / BITS_PER_LONG);
w += bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)bitmap, longs * BITS_PER_LONG);
bytes -= longs * sizeof(long);
bitmap += longs * sizeof(long);
for (; bytes > 0; bytes--, bitmap++)
w += hweight8(*bitmap);
return w;
}
bitmap_weight copes with a bitmask that isn't a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG
in size already. So I think this can be done as:
unsigned long memweight(const void *s, size_t n)
{
const unsigned char *ptr = s;
unsigned long r = 0;
while (n > 0 && (unsigned long)ptr % sizeof(long)) {
r += hweight8(*ptr);
n--;
ptr++;
}
BUG_ON(n >= INT_MAX / 8)
return r + bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)ptr, n * 8);
}
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."