Re: [PATCH 7/9] xen/bitops: Implement hweight64() in terms of hweightl()

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 27/08/2024 2:25 pm, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/08/2024 2:00 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 27.08.2024 13:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 26/08/2024 12:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.08.2024 01:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Again, this is modelled after f[fl]s64() which have the same
>>> expectations about the BITS_PER_LONG != 64 case.
>> Both of them are fine afaict. fls64() has an explicit intermediate
>> variable of type uint32_t, and ffs64() has a (uint32_t)x as part
>> of the conditional expression achieving the intended effect.
>>
>> Anyway, why not use hweight32() instead of hweightl() here? That'll
>> make things very explicit.
> hweight32() doesn't exist until the next patch in the series.
>
> Although looking at the end result, I can't figure out why I thought it
> was necessary to transform hweight64 first.
>
> I'll swap this patch and the next one, and then use hweight32().

I've found out why.

The hweight32() patch is the one that deletes generic_hweight32(), but
generic_hweight64() uses it.

I can work around this, but it means keeping generic_hweight32() around
and deleting it in the hweight64() patch.

~Andrew