On Saturday 30 July 2011 13:29:52 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Christian Lamparter > <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Wait a sec... I guess you misunderstood my post about the cut-off. > > I meant that you can cut of at the bottom by using log2(max(1, val)). > > This ensures that the log2 will always be >= 0 anyway. In fact log2(1) = 0. > > I get that now, but my point was that we also had to cap it for a > higher value too. We now restrict the input to values within the data > type and also ensure log2 will always be >= 0. Doesn't acs [not to be confused with cisco acs] use u64 for all input data? If so, why do we need to restrict those? After all 2^64-1 ms is still around 584.9 million years. (BTW: I don't understand the comment of log2_sane. log2(2^30) + log2(2^30) = 60. so this should work very well with a long double. Even with just 80-bit, the range goes from something like 3.65 * 10^-4951 to 1.19 x 10^4932.) Chr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
