From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "zhaoxiu.zeng" <zhaoxiu.zeng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] bitops: add parity functions
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 21:38:23 +0800
Message-ID: <56F7E24F.3040306@gmail.com>
References: <1458788612-4367-1-git-send-email-zhaoxiu.zeng@gmail.com>
 <56F3A77D.6060802@redhat.com> <56F75490.9010608@gmail.com>
 <20160327124401.GA7407@ravnborg.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:36551 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751391AbcC0Ni5 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:38:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160327124401.GA7407@ravnborg.org>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

On 2016/3/27 20:44, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Zeng.
> 
> Looking through the arch specific implementations of __arch_parity().
> Some architectures uses #defines, other uses inline static functions.
> 
> Any particular reason that you select one approach over the other
> in the different cases?
> 
> ia64:
> +#define __arch_parity32(x) ((unsigned int) __arch_parity64((x) & 0xfffffffful))
> +#define __arch_parity16(x) ((unsigned int) __arch_parity64((x) & 0xfffful))
> +#define __arch_parity8(x)  ((unsigned int) __arch_parity64((x) & 0xfful))
> +#define __arch_parity4(x)  ((unsigned int) __arch_parity64((x) & 0xful))
> 
> tile:
> +static inline unsigned int __arch_parity32(unsigned int w)
> +{
> +	return __builtin_popcount(w) & 1;
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int __arch_parity16(unsigned int w)
> +{
> +	return __arch_parity32(w & 0xffff);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int __arch_parity8(unsigned int w)
> +{
> +	return __arch_parity32(w & 0xff);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int __arch_parity4(unsigned int w)
> +{
> +	return __arch_parity32(w & 0xf);
> +}
> 

No particular reason, just like the architecture's __arch_hweightN.

> Just two examples.
> 
> Adding the parity helpers seems like veny nice simplifications.
> 
> A few comments to some of those I looked at.
> (I am not subscribed to lkml, so you get it as comments here)
> 

I think the conversion is simple and readable.

> [PATCH 21/31] mtd: use parity16 in ssfdc.c
> The original code semes to check that the parity equals the
> value of first bit in the address.
> This seems lost after the conversion.
> 

The original get_parity return 1 if the number is even, so
if block_address is valid, "block_address & 0x7ff" must be odd.

> [PATCH 20/31] scsi: use parity32 in isci/phy.c
> +	if (parity32(phy_cap.all))
>  		phy_cap.parity = 1;
> Could be written like this - simpler IMO:
> 	phy_cap.parity = parity32(phy_cap.all);
> 
> 
> 	Sam
> 
Yes. Thanks!