Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2020 22:18:22 +0000 | From | Wei Yang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bitops: simplify get_count_order_long() |
| |
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:05:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >On Wed, 27 May 2020 22:45:42 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote: > >> /* a tiny module only meant to test get_count_order/long */ >> unsigned int order_comb[][2] = { >> {0x00000003, 2}, >> {0x00000004, 2}, >> {0x00001fff, 13}, >> {0x00002000, 13}, >> {0x50000000, 32}, >> {0x80000000, 32}, >> }; >> >> static int __init test_getorder_startup(void) >> { >> int i; >> >> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(order_comb); i++) { >> if (order_comb[i][1] != get_count_order(order_comb[i][0])) >> pr_warn("get_count_order wrong for %lx\n", >> order_comb[i][0]); >> } >> >> return 0; >> } >> >> Since I don't get a way to iterate all the possibilities, some random >> combination is chosen. Is this one looks good? > >Looks good. > >You might want to add a less-negative number as well? 0x80030000. >Something that won't turn positive if it has 1 subtracted from it.
Thanks, this is a good suggestion.
-- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
| |