On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 07:06:12PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 27/11/2019 6:24 pm, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 18:06 +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > On 26/11/2019 12:51 pm, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > > > > Some users need to make sure their rounding function accepts and returns > > > > > 64bit long variables regardless of the architecture. Sadly > > > > > roundup/rounddown_pow_two() takes and returns unsigned longs. Create a > > > > > new generic 64bit variant of the function and cleanup rougue custom > > > > > implementations. > > > > > > > > Is it possible to create general roundup/rounddown_pow_two() which will > > > > work correctly for any type of variables, instead of creating special > > > > variant for every type? > > > > > > In fact, that is sort of the case already - roundup_pow_of_two() itself > > > wraps ilog2() such that the constant case *is* type-independent. And > > > since ilog2() handles non-constant values anyway, might it be reasonable > > > to just take the strongly-typed __roundup_pow_of_two() helper out of the > > > loop as below? > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > > That looks way better that's for sure. Some questions. > > > > > ----->8----- > > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h > > > index 83a4a3ca3e8a..e825f8a6e8b5 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h > > > @@ -172,11 +172,8 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > > > */ > > > #define roundup_pow_of_two(n) \ > > > ( \ > > > - __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ > > > - (n == 1) ? 1 : \ > > > - (1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1)) \ > > > - ) : \ > > > - __roundup_pow_of_two(n) \ > > > + (__builtin_constant_p(n) && (n == 1)) ? \ > > > + 1 : (1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1)) \ > > > > Then here you'd have to use ULL instead of UL, right? I want my 64bit value > > everywhere regardless of the CPU arch. The downside is that would affect > > performance to some extent (i.e. returning a 64bit value where you used to have > > a 32bit one)? > > True, although it's possible that 1ULL might result in the same codegen if > the compiler can see that the result is immediately truncated back to long > anyway. Or at worst, I suppose "(typeof(n))1" could suffice, however ugly. > Either way, this diff was only an illustration rather than a concrete > proposal, but it might be an interesting diversion to investigate. > > On that note, though, you should probably be using ULL in your current patch > too. > > > Also, what about callers to this function on platforms with 32bit 'unsigned > > longs' that happen to input a 64bit value into this. IIUC we'd have a change of > > behaviour. > > Indeed, although the change in such a case would be "start getting the > expected value instead of nonsense", so it might very well be welcome ;) Agree, if code overflowed with 32 bits before this change, the code was already broken. At least now, it won't overflow. > > Robin.
