On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote:
> and bdrv_dirty_bitmap_reverse() helper
Is 'inverse' a better name than 'reverse'?
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Zhadchenko <andrey.zhadche...@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> +++ b/util/hbitmap.c
> @@ -940,3 +940,18 @@ char *hbitmap_sha256(const HBitmap *bitmap, Error **errp)
>
> return hash;
> }
> +
> +void hbitmap_reverse(HBitmap *bitmap)
> +{
> + int64_t pnum, pos = 0;
> + int64_t size = bitmap->orig_size;
> +
> + while (pos < size) {
> + if (hbitmap_status(bitmap, pos, size - pos, &pnum)) {
> + hbitmap_reset(bitmap, pos, pnum);
> + } else {
> + hbitmap_set(bitmap, pos, pnum);
> + }
To me, reverse on 1110000 would be 0000111 (swapping the order); while
inverse would be 0001111 (swapping the bits but preserving the order).
The naming change will require respinning the series, but the concept
makes sense.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
Virtualization: qemu.org | libguestfs.org
