Re: [PATCH 02/17] bitops: Add generic parity calculation for u64

Jiri Slaby
2025-02-27T06:39:10Z

On 26. 02. 25, 19:33, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Not in cases where macros are inevitable. I mean, do we need parityXX() for
>> XX in (8, 16, 32, 64) at all? Isn't the parity() above enough for everybody?
>
> The existing codebase has something like:
>
> int ret;
>
> ret = i3c_master_get_free_addr(m, last_addr + 1);
> ret |= parity8(ret) ? 0 : BIT(7)
>
> So if we'll switch it to a macro like one above, it will become a
> 32-bit parity. It wouldn't be an error because i3c_master_get_free_addr()
> returns an u8 or -ENOMEM, and the error code is checked explicitly.
>
> But if we decide to go with parity() only, some users will have to
> call it like parity((u8)val) explicitly. Which is not bad actually.

That cast looks ugly -- we apparently need parityXX(). (In this
particular case we could do parity8(last_addr), but I assume there are
more cases like this.) Thanks for looking up the case for this.

>> And if not, you can have all those parityXX() as inlines as you suggest, but
>> also provide a macro such as the above to call (optimized) parityXX() as per
>> datatype len.
>
> Yes, if we need fixed-type parity's, they should all be one-liners
> calling the same macro. Macros or inline functions - no preference for
> me.

--
js
suse labs