On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:54:12PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:38:50PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >> One question still:
> >>
> >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >>> return popcount(n) + popcount(n >> 32);
> >>> @@ -341,7 +332,7 @@ ctz(uint32_t n)
> >>> static inline int
> >>> ctz64(uint64_t n)
> >>> {
> >>> - return n ? raw_ctz64(n) : 64;
> >>> + return n ? raw_ctz(n) : 64;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did you intend to define ctz(uint64_t) and not define ctz64() at all?
> >
> > I got the commit message wrong, sorry. This commit is intended to be
> > entirely about raw_ctz() and raw_ctz64(), specifically getting rid of
> > the latter. It looks like I got the code right but the commit message
> > totally wrong. Here's what I've now edited the commit message to:
> >
> > util: Make raw_ctz() accept 64-bit integers.
> >
> > Having a single function that can do raw_ctz() on any integer type is
> > easier for callers to get right, and there is no real downside in the
> > implementation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
> > Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
> >
> > I think I got confused because originally I did want to get rid of
> > ctz64(). However that's not possible with the current definition of
> > ctz() and ctz64(), since the return value for n==0 differs in each
> > case.
> >
> > Does the commit make sense with the correct log message?
> >
>
> Yes it does, thanks.
Thanks, I'll apply this soon.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
