Hi Robin, On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:48 +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 03/12/2019 11:47 am, 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. It turns > > out ilog2() already handles 32/64bit calculations properly, and being > > the building block to the round functions we can rework them as a > > wrapper around it. > > Neat! Although all the additional ULL casts this introduces seem > somewhat unwelcome - I suppose the (1ULL << (ilog2(n))) makes it > effectively always return unsigned long long now. Might it make sense to > cast the return value to typeof(n) to avoid this slightly non-obvious > behaviour (and the associated churn)? It might alleviate some of the churn alright but I don't think a cast is really going to make the behaviour more obvious. Say your expression is a big mess, you'll have to analyze it to infer the output type, keeping in mind things like integer promotion. See this example, 'params->nelem_hint' and 'params->min_size' are u16: diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c index bdb7e4cadf05..70908678c7a8 100644 --- a/lib/rhashtable.c +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ static size_t rounded_hashtable_size(const struct rhashtable_params *params) if (params->nelem_hint) retsize = max(roundup_pow_of_two(params->nelem_hint * 4 / 3), - (unsigned long)params->min_size); + (unsigned long long)params->min_size); else retsize = max(HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE, (unsigned long)params->min_size); With a cast the patch will look like this: diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c index bdb7e4cadf05..70908678c7a8 100644 --- a/lib/rhashtable.c +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ static size_t rounded_hashtable_size(const struct rhashtable_params *params) if (params->nelem_hint) retsize = max(roundup_pow_of_two(params->nelem_hint * 4 / 3), - (unsigned long)params->min_size); + (int)params->min_size); else retsize = max(HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE, (unsigned long)params->min_size); To me it's even less obvious than with a fixed ULL. My intuition tells me to keep it as similar as the old behaviour, at the expense of the extra churn (which is not that different from the current status quo anyway). That said, I'll be happy to change it. Regards, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
