Re: [PATCH v17 01/14] bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_clump8 macro

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andy,

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:31 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:54 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:28:08AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:27 AM William Breathitt Gray
> > > > > <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This macro iterates for each 8-bit group of bits (clump) with set bits,
> > > > > > within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "start" is set to the
> > > > > > bit offset of the found clump, while the respective clump value is
> > > > > > stored to the location pointed by "clump". Additionally, the
> > > > > > bitmap_get_value8 and bitmap_set_value8 functions are introduced to
> > > > > > respectively get and set an 8-bit value in a bitmap memory region.
> > > >
> > > > > Why is the return type "unsigned long" where you know
> > > > > it return the 8-bit value ?
> > > >
> > > > Because bitmap API operates on unsigned long type. This is not only
> > > > consistency, but for sake of flexibility in case we would like to introduce
> > > > more calls like clump16 or so.
> > >
> > > TBH, that doesn't convince me: those functions explicitly take/return an
> > > 8-bit value, and have "8" in their name.  The 8-bit value is never
> > > really related to, retrieved from, or stored in a full "unsigned long"
> > > element of a bitmap, only to/from/in a part (byte) of it.
> > >
> > > Following your rationale, all of iowrite{8,16,32,64}*() should take an
> > > "unsigned long" value, too.
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Using u8/u16/u32/u64 looks more consistent with other bitmap helpers.
> >
> > void bitmap_from_arr32(unsigned long *bitmap, const u32 *buf, unsigned
> > int nbits);
> > void bitmap_to_arr32(u32 *buf, const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int nbits);
> > static inline void bitmap_from_u64(unsigned long *dst, u64 mask);
> >
> >
> >
> > If you want to see more examples from other parts,
>
> Geert's and yours examples both are not related. They are about
> fixed-width properies when we know that is the part of protocol.
> Here we have no protocol which stricts us to the mentioned fixed-width types.

Yes you have: they are functions to store/retrieve an 8-bit value from
the middle of the bitmap, which is reflected in their names ("clump8",
"value8").
The input/output value is clearly separated from the actual bitmap,
which is referenced by the "unsigned long *".

If you add new "value16" functions, they will be intended to store/retrieve
16-bit values.

Besides, if retrieving an 8-bit value requires passing an
"unsigned long *", the caller needs two variables: one unsigned long to
pass the address of, and one u8 to copy the returned value into.

> So, I can tell an opposite, your arguments didn't convince me.
>
> Imagine the function which does an or / and / xor operation on bitmap.
> Now, when I supply unsigned long, I will see
> operations on one type in _one_ function independently of the size.
> Your proposal will make an unneded churn.

Depends on what kind of value you will use to do the logical operation
with the bitmap:
  - Full bitmap => unsigned long * + size,
  - Single bitmap "word" => unsigned long,
  - 8-bit value => u8,
  - 16-bit value => u16

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds