Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] bitops: Change parity8() return type to bool

H. Peter Anvin
2025-03-07T19:37:02Z

On March 7, 2025 11:30:08 AM PST, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 04:14:34AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On March 7, 2025 4:13:26 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 07. 03. 25, 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On 06. 03. 25, 17:25, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
>> >> > > > Change return type to bool for better clarity. Update the kernel doc
>> >> > > > comment accordingly, including fixing "@value" to "@val" and adjusting
>> >> > > > examples. Also mark the function with __attribute_const__ to allow
>> >> > > > potential compiler optimizations.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Co-developed-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > ---
>> >> > > > include/linux/bitops.h | 10 +++++-----
>> >> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > > > index c1cb53cf2f0f..44e5765b8bec 100644
>> >> > > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > > > @@ -231,26 +231,26 @@ static inline int get_count_order_long(unsigned long l)
>> >> > > > /**
>> >> > > > * parity8 - get the parity of an u8 value
>> >> > > > - * @value: the value to be examined
>> >> > > > + * @val: the value to be examined
>> >> > > > *
>> >> > > > * Determine the parity of the u8 argument.
>> >> > > > *
>> >> > > > * Returns:
>> >> > > > - * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity
>> >> > > > + * false for even parity, true for odd parity
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This occurs somehow inverted to me. When something is in parity means that
>> >> > > it has equal number of 1s and 0s. I.e. return true for even distribution.
>> >> > > Dunno what others think? Or perhaps this should be dubbed odd_parity() when
>> >> > > bool is returned? Then you'd return true for odd.
>> >> >
>> >> > OTOH:
>> >> >
>> >> > - '0' is an even number and is returned for even parity,
>> >> > - '1' is an odd number and is returned for odd parity.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that used to make sense for me. For bool/true/false, it no longer does.
>> >> But as I wrote, it might be only me...
>> >
>> >No strong opinion on this from me either, I'd guess existing practice
>> >with other parity functions should probably control. (If a coherent
>> >praxis exists.).
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ingo
>>
>> Instead of "bool" think of it as "bit" and it makes more sense
>
>So, to help people thinking that way we can introduce a corresponding
>type:
> typedef unsigned _BitInt(1) u1;
>
>It already works for clang, and GCC is going to adopt it with std=c23.
>We can make u1 an alias to bool for GCC for a while. If you guys like
>it, I can send a patch.
>
>For clang it prints quite a nice overflow warning:
>
>tst.c:59:9: warning: implicit conversion from 'int' to 'u1' (aka 'unsigned _BitInt(1)') changes value from 2 to 0 [-Wconstant-conversion]
> 59 | u1 r = 2;
> | ~ ^
>
>Thanks,
>Yury

No, for a whole bunch of reasons.