Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] BATMAN routing

[Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

hlabishi kobo wrote:
> int weighted_bit_packet_count(TYPE_OF_WORD *seq_bits)
> {
> 	int i,check, count = 0;
> 	TYPE_OF_WORD word;
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < NUM_WORDS; i++) {
> 		word = seq_bits[i];
> 		int j = WORD_BIT_SIZE, k = 1;
> 
> 		while (j > 0 && k <= 32){

it is wrong to assume that unsigned long is 32 bit long.

>         		check = (word & (1 << j)) >> j;
>        		 	if (check == 1)
>          		   count += k;
> 		j--;
> 		k++;

I would doubt that it is correct to give every set bit the same weight when 
they have the the distance of sizeof(unsigned long)*8. And I cannot find a 
good reason why an "old" unsigned long should get the same weights as the 
"newest" unsigned long - at least not when the actual weights should be 
reduced for "older" bits in a single unsigned long and the overall weights 
should be monotonic decreasing with the age. And using WORD_BIT_SIZE for j is 
like assuming that we only have a single unsigned long in seq_bits... which is 
not true for many architectures.

And the code is overly complicated without any good reason.

Kind regards,
	Sven

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]