On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) Input data is u64, however interference factor is long double. Luis -- 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
