Hi George,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:36 AM George Spelvin wrote:
> >> swap_bytes / swap_4byte_words / swap_8byte_words
> >> swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
> >> swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
> >> Pistols at dawn?
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:59:55 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> > Yes, in my
>> swap_bytes / swap_4byte_words / swap_8byte_words
>> swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
>> swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
>> Pistols at dawn?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:59:55 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> Yes, in my opinion, swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs are the
> most readable because we have
> Pistols at dawn?
> swap_bytes
> swap_4byte_words
> swap_8byte_words
or
> swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
> swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
Yes, in my opinion, swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs are the most readable
because we have both swap_ints and swap_longs functions (in one file near
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:53:55AM +, George Spelvin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:41:26 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:10 AM George Spelvin wrote:
> >> On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 at 23:19:49 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> How about one of:
>
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:41:26 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:10 AM George Spelvin wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 at 23:19:49 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
How about one of:
swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
>>>
>>> longs are
Hi George,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:10 AM George Spelvin wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 at 23:19:49 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> >> How about one of:
> >> swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
> >> swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
> >
> > longs are ambiguous, so I would prefer bit-sized types.
>
> I
On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 at 23:19:49 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
>> Although I'm thinking of:
>>
>> static bool __attribute_const__
>> is_aligned(const void *base, size_t size, unsigned char align)
>> {
>> unsigned char lsbits = (unsigned char)size;
>>
>> (void)base;
>> #ifndef
On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 at 23:19:49 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
>> Although I'm thinking of:
>>
>> static bool __attribute_const__
>> is_aligned(const void *base, size_t size, unsigned char align)
>> {
>> unsigned char lsbits = (unsigned char)size;
>>
>> (void)base;
>> #ifndef
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 03:53:41PM +, l...@sdf.org wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 06:30:28AM +, George Spelvin wrote:
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> >
> > Why #ifdef is better than if (IS_ENABLED()) ?
>
> Because
Thank you for your thoughtful comments!
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 23:23:44 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 07.30, George Spelvin wrote:
> + * @align: required aignment (typically 4 or 8)
>
> typo aLignment
Thanks; fixed!
>> + * Returns true if elements can be copied using word loads
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:23 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 07.30, George Spelvin wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > + (void)base;
> > +#else
> > + lsbits |= (unsigned int)(size_t)base;
>
> The kernel usually casts pointers to long or unsigned long.
On 21/02/2019 07.30, George Spelvin wrote:
> Rather than u32_swap and u64_swap working on 4- and 8-byte objects
> directly, let them handle any multiple of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds
> up most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
>
> Despite what commit ca96ab859ab4
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Shouldn't simple memcpy cover these case for both 32- and 64-bit
> architectures?
Speaking of replacing swap with copying via temporary buffers, one
idea that did come to mind was avoiding swap for sufficiently small
objects.
Every sift-down is actually a circular
> Although I'm thinking of:
>
> static bool __attribute_const__
> is_aligned(const void *base, size_t size, unsigned char align)
> {
> unsigned char lsbits = (unsigned char)size;
>
> (void)base;
> #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> lsbits |= (unsigned char)(uintptr_t)base;
> #endif
>
Thnk you for the feedback!
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 06:30:28AM +, George Spelvin wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
>
> Why #ifdef is better than if (IS_ENABLED()) ?
Because CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is bool and not
tristate.
Rather than u32_swap and u64_swap working on 4- and 8-byte objects
directly, let them handle any multiple of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds
up most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what commit ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function")
claims, very few
16 matches
Mail list logo
