Shailabh wrote:
> Perhaps I should use the the other ascii format for specifying cpumasks
> since its more amenable
> to specifying an upper bound for the length of the ascii string and is
> more compact ?
Eh - basically - I don't have a strong opinion either way.
I have a slight esthetic preference toward using list of ranges format
from shell scripts and shell prompts, and using the 32-bit hex words
from C code:
17-26,44-47 # shell - list of ranges
0000f000,07fe0000 # C - 32-bit hex words
Since the primary interface you are working with is C code, that would
mean I'd slightly prefer the 32-bit hex word variant.
>From what I've seen neither of the reasons you gave for preferring
the 32-bit hex word format are persuasive (even though they both
lead to the same conclusion as I preferred ;):
Which is more compact depends on that particular bit pattern
you need to represent. See for example the examples above.
The lack of a perfect upper bound on the list of ranges format
is a theoretical problem that I have never seen in practice.
Only pathological constructs exceed six ascii characters per
set bit.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
