On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 19:04 +0200, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:--- a/include/linux/bitrev.h 2008-04-17 08:19:44.000000000 +0530
+++ b/include/linux/bitrev.h 2008-05-19 21:49:46.000000000 +0530
@@ -3,11 +3,32 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
-extern u8 const byte_rev_table[256];
+/**
+ * Here is a generalised bit reversal program
+ * @x: word to get bits reversed
+ * @k: key, explained below
+ * for k = 31, it reverses the bits of word(32 bit)
+ * for k = 24, it reverses the bytes in word
+ * for k = 7, it reverses the bits in every byte without
+ * changing the positions of bytes in a word
+ * and for k = 16 it swaps the left and right halves of a
+ * word
+ */
-static inline u8 bitrev8(u8 byte)
What about anybody who currently uses bitrev8?
+static inline u32 gen_bit_rev(u32 x, u32 k)
{
- return byte_rev_table[byte];
+ if(k & 1)
+ x = (x & 0x55555555) << 1 | (x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
+ if(k & 2)
+ x = (x & 0x33333333) << 2 | (x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
+ if(k & 4)
+ x = (x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
+ if(k & 8)
+ x = (x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
+ if(k & 16)
+ x = (x & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (x & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
+
+ return x;
}
Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?
Harvey
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It is a static function, so you cant use it from outside of this-static inline u8 bitrev8(u8 byte)
Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?