> If one uses UINT_MAX, a for_each_bit_reverse() macro would just be
> something like
>
> for (i = find_last_bit(bitmap, size); i < size; i =
> find_last_bit(bitmap, i))
>
> if one wants to use the size argument as the sentinel, the caller would
> have to supply a scratch variable to keep track of the last i value:
>
> for (j = size, i = find_last_bit(bitmap, j); i < j; j = i, i =
> find_last_bit(bitmap, j))
>
> which is probably a little less ergonomic.
Actually Because I want to avoid the modification of return type of
find_last_*_bit for new sentinel,
I add find_prev_*_bit.
the big difference between find_last_bit and find_prev_bit is
find_last_bit doesn't check the size bit and use sentinel with size.
but find_prev_bit check the offset bit and use sentinel with size
which passed by another argument.
So if we use find_prev_bit, we could have a clear iteration if
using find_prev_bit like.
#define for_each_set_bit_reverse(bit, addr, size) \
for ((bit) = find_last_bit((addr), (size)); \
(bit) < (size); \
(bit) = find_prev_bit((addr), (size), (bit - 1)))
#define for_each_set_bit_from_reverse(bit, addr, size) \
for ((bit) = find_prev_bit((addr), (size), (bit)); \
(bit) < (size); \
(bit) = find_prev_bit((addr), (size), (bit - 1)))
Though find_prev_*_bit / find_last_*_bit have the same functionality.
But they also have a small difference.
I think this small this small difference doesn't make some of
confusion to user but it help to solve problem
with a simple way (just like the iteration above).
So I think I need, find_prev_*_bit series.
Am I missing anything?
Thanks.
Levi.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2020 02.23, Yun Levi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:51 AM Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:26 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:22 AM Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:26 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Also look at lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> >>>> Thanks. I'll see.
> >>>>
> >>>>> We need find_next_*_bit() because find_first_*_bit() can start searching only at word-aligned
> >>>>> bits. In the case of find_last_*_bit(), we can start at any bit. So, if my understanding is correct,
> >>>>> for the purpose of reverse traversing we can go with already existing find_last_bit(),
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you. I haven't thought that way.
> >>>> But I think if we implement reverse traversing using find_last_bit(),
> >>>> we have a problem.
> >>>> Suppose the last bit 0, 1, 2, is set.
> >>>> If we start
> >>>> find_last_bit(bitmap, 3) ==> return 2;
> >>>> find_last_bit(bitmap, 2) ==> return 1;
> >>>> find_last_bit(bitmap, 1) ==> return 0;
> >>>> find_last_bit(bitmap, 0) ===> return 0? // here we couldn't
>
> Either just make the return type of all find_prev/find_last be signed
> int and use -1 as the sentinel to indicate "no such position exists", so
> the loop condition would be foo >= 0. Or, change the condition from
> "stop if we get the size returned" to "only continue if we get something
> strictly less than the size we passed in (i.e., something which can
> possibly be a valid bit index). In the latter case, both (unsigned)-1
> aka UINT_MAX and the actual size value passed work equally well as a
> sentinel.
>
> If one uses UINT_MAX, a for_each_bit_reverse() macro would just be
> something like
>
> for (i = find_last_bit(bitmap, size); i < size; i =
> find_last_bit(bitmap, i))
>
> if one wants to use the size argument as the sentinel, the caller would
> have to supply a scratch variable to keep track of the last i value:
>
> for (j = size, i = find_last_bit(bitmap, j); i < j; j = i, i =
> find_last_bit(bitmap, j))
>
> which is probably a little less ergonomic.
>
> Rasmus
