On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:17 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Yuze Chi <chiyuze@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is a missing not. Consider a power of 2 number like 4096:
>
> x && (x & (x - 1))
> 4096 && (4096 & (4096 - 1))
> 4096 && (4096 & 4095)
> 4096 && 0
> 0
>
> with the not this is:
> x && !(x & (x - 1))
> 4096 && !(4096 & (4096 - 1))
> 4096 && !(4096 & 4095)
> 4096 && !0
> 4096 && 1
> 1
>
> Reported-by: Yuze Chi <chiyuze@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yuze Chi <chiyuze@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 3f4f18684bd3..fd0414ea00df 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -4956,7 +4956,7 @@ static void bpf_map__destroy(struct bpf_map *map);
>
> static bool is_pow_of_2(size_t x)
> {
> - return x && (x & (x - 1));
> + return x && !(x & (x - 1));
No idea if anyone cares about the consistency, but in linker.c (same directory)
the same static function is defined using == 0 at the end instead of using the
not operator.
Aside from the consistency issue, personally I find the == 0 version a little
bit easier to read and understand because it's a bit less dense (and a "!" next
to a "(" is an easy character to overlook).
> }
>
> static size_t adjust_ringbuf_sz(size_t sz)
> --
> 2.36.1.255.ge46751e96f-goog
>
