On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:12:18PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> size_t memweight(const void *ptr, size_t bytes)
Why should this return size_t instead of unsigned long?
> {
> size_t w = 0;
> size_t longs;
> const unsigned char *bitmap = ptr;
>
> for (; bytes > 0 && ((unsigned long)bitmap) % sizeof(long);
> bytes--, bitmap++)
> w += hweight8(*bitmap);
>
> longs = bytes / sizeof(long);
> BUG_ON(longs >= INT_MAX / BITS_PER_LONG);
> w += bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)bitmap, longs * BITS_PER_LONG);
> bytes -= longs * sizeof(long);
> bitmap += longs * sizeof(long);
>
> for (; bytes > 0; bytes--, bitmap++)
> w += hweight8(*bitmap);
>
> return w;
> }
bitmap_weight copes with a bitmask that isn't a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG
in size already. So I think this can be done as:
unsigned long memweight(const void *s, size_t n)
{
const unsigned char *ptr = s;
unsigned long r = 0;
while (n > 0 && (unsigned long)ptr % sizeof(long)) {
r += hweight8(*ptr);
n--;
ptr++;
}
BUG_ON(n >= INT_MAX / 8)
return r + bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)ptr, n * 8);
}
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
