On March 7, 2025 11:36:43 AM PST, David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:42:41 +0100 >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 me as well, I've made the same comment before. >When reading code I don't want to have to look up a function definition. >There is even scope for having parity_odd() and parity_even(). >And, with the version that shifts a constant right you want to invert >the constant! > > David > > > > Of course, for me, if I saw "parity_odd()" I would think of it as a function that caused the parity to become odd, i.e. if (!parity(x)) x ^= 1 << 7;
