Re: [PATCH 2/4] hbitmap: introduce hbitmap_reverse()

[Andrey Zhadchenko <andrey.zhadchenko@virtuozzo.com>]

On 5/20/25 18:29, Eric Blake wrote:
> [?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?? eblake@redhat.com. ???????, ?????? ??? ?????, ?? ?????? https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote:
>> and bdrv_dirty_bitmap_reverse() helper
> 
> Is 'inverse' a better name than 'reverse'?

Yeah, it sounds much better this way!
I will re-do the patchset

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Zhadchenko <andrey.zhadchenko@virtuozzo.com>
>> ---
>> +++ b/util/hbitmap.c
>> @@ -940,3 +940,18 @@ char *hbitmap_sha256(const HBitmap *bitmap, Error **errp)
>>
>>       return hash;
>>   }
>> +
>> +void hbitmap_reverse(HBitmap *bitmap)
>> +{
>> +    int64_t pnum, pos = 0;
>> +    int64_t size = bitmap->orig_size;
>> +
>> +    while (pos < size) {
>> +        if (hbitmap_status(bitmap, pos, size - pos, &pnum)) {
>> +            hbitmap_reset(bitmap, pos, pnum);
>> +        } else {
>> +            hbitmap_set(bitmap, pos, pnum);
>> +        }
> 
> To me, reverse on 1110000 would be 0000111 (swapping the order); while
> inverse would be 0001111 (swapping the bits but preserving the order).
> 
> The naming change will require respinning the series, but the concept
> makes sense.
 > > --
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Virtualization:  qemu.org | libguestfs.org
>