On March 7, 2025 4:13:26 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07. 03. 25, 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > >> > * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > > On 06. 03. 25, 17:25, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: >> > > > Change return type to bool for better clarity. Update the kernel doc >> > > > comment accordingly, including fixing "@value" to "@val" and adjusting >> > > > examples. Also mark the function with __attribute_const__ to allow >> > > > potential compiler optimizations. >> > > > >> > > > Co-developed-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > --- >> > > > include/linux/bitops.h | 10 +++++----- >> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h >> > > > index c1cb53cf2f0f..44e5765b8bec 100644 >> > > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h >> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h >> > > > @@ -231,26 +231,26 @@ static inline int get_count_order_long(unsigned long l) >> > > > /** >> > > > * parity8 - get the parity of an u8 value >> > > > - * @value: the value to be examined >> > > > + * @val: the value to be examined >> > > > * >> > > > * Determine the parity of the u8 argument. >> > > > * >> > > > * Returns: >> > > > - * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity >> > > > + * false for even parity, true for odd parity >> > > >> > > This occurs somehow inverted to me. When something is in parity means that >> > > it has equal number of 1s and 0s. I.e. return true for even distribution. >> > > Dunno what others think? Or perhaps this should be dubbed odd_parity() when >> > > bool is returned? Then you'd return true for odd. >> > >> > OTOH: >> > >> > - '0' is an even number and is returned for even parity, >> > - '1' is an odd number and is returned for odd parity. >> >> Yes, that used to make sense for me. For bool/true/false, it no longer does. >> But as I wrote, it might be only me... > >No strong opinion on this from me either, I'd guess existing practice >with other parity functions should probably control. (If a coherent >praxis exists.). > >Thanks, > > Ingo Instead of "bool" think of it as "bit" and it makes more sense
