On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:12 PM HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:30 PM HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) <
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >       Hi Lianbo,
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       >       diff --git a/defs.h b/defs.h
> >       >       index 81ac049..1e8360d 100644
> >       >       --- a/defs.h
> >       >       +++ b/defs.h
> >       >       @@ -4531,6 +4531,26 @@ struct machine_specific {
> >       >        #define NUM_IN_BITMAP(bitmap, x)
> (bitmap[(x)/BITS_PER_LONG] & NUM_TO_BIT(x))
> >       >        #define SET_BIT(bitmap, x) (bitmap[(x)/BITS_PER_LONG] |=
> NUM_TO_BIT(x))
> >       >
> >       >       +static inline unsigned int __const_hweight8(unsigned long
> w)
> >       >       +{
> >       >       +       return
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 0))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 1))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 2))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 3))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 4))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 5))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 6))) +
> >       >       +               (!!((w) & (1ULL << 7)));
> >       >       +}
> >       >       +
> >       >       +#define __const_hweight16(w) (__const_hweight8(w)  +
> __const_hweight8((w)  >> 8))
> >       >       +#define __const_hweight32(w) (__const_hweight16(w) +
> __const_hweight16((w) >> 16))
> >       >       +#define __const_hweight64(w) (__const_hweight32(w) +
> __const_hweight32((w) >> 32))
> >       >       +
> >       >       +#define hweight32(w) __const_hweight32(w)
> >       >       +#define hweight64(w) __const_hweight64(w)
> >       >       +
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > No need to move the above code from sbitmap.c to defs.h, a
> simple way is to implement a new function
> > in
> >       > sbitmap.c and add its definition in defs.h, that will
> >       > be easy to call it in diskdump.c. For example:
> >       >
> >       > diff --git a/defs.h b/defs.h
> >       > index 81ac0498dac7..0c5115e71f1c 100644
> >       > --- a/defs.h
> >       > +++ b/defs.h
> >       > @@ -5894,6 +5894,7 @@ typedef bool
> (*sbitmap_for_each_fn)(unsigned int idx, void *p);
> >       >  void sbitmap_for_each_set(const struct sbitmap_context *sc,
> >       >   sbitmap_for_each_fn fn, void *data);
> >       >  void sbitmap_context_load(ulong addr, struct sbitmap_context
> *sc);
> >       > +unsigned long get_hweight64(unsigned long w);
> >       >
> >       >  /* sbitmap_queue helpers */
> >       >  typedef bool (*sbitmapq_for_each_fn)(unsigned int idx, ulong
> addr, void *p);
> >       > diff --git a/sbitmap.c b/sbitmap.c
> >       > index 286259f71d64..628cc00c0b6b 100644
> >       > --- a/sbitmap.c
> >       > +++ b/sbitmap.c
> >       > @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@ static inline unsigned int
> __const_hweight8(unsigned long w)
> >       >
> >       >  #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr))
> >       >
> >       > +unsigned long get_hweight64(unsigned long w)
> >       > +{
> >       > + return hweight64(w);
> >       > +}
> >       > +
> >       >  static inline unsigned long min(unsigned long a, unsigned long
> b)
> >       >  {
> >       >   return (a < b) ? a : b;
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > //diskdump.c
> >       > ...
> >       > dd->valid_pages[i] += get_hweight64(tmp);
> >       >
> >       > ...
> >       >
> >       > How about the above suggestions? Shijie and Kazu.
> >
> >       Thanks for the suggestion, but personally I don't think it has more
> >       benefits than moving them.  What is the good point?
> >
> >
> >
> >  It has fewer code changes. The bitmap operation can be maintained
> together
> >  in the sbitmap.c and won't be scattered elsewhere.
> >
> > In the future, some new functions may be still extended for the bitmap
> operations in the sbitmap.c, that
> > will avoid adding more bitmap operations to defs.h.
> >
> > That's my concern. If that is not a problem, the v2 will be fine to me.
> :-)
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I see.  I think that it's not a problem
> for now.
>
> Now at least the existing bitmap operations become common ones and they
> do not use values in the sbitmap.c, it's not suitable to maintain them
> there with a function to access.  If new functions are extended, let's
> optimize them at that time.
>

Thanks for your comment, Kazu.
I have no other issue. Applied

Thanks.
Lianbo
--
Crash-utility mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki

Reply via email to