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

[Jacob Keller]

On 3/7/2025 11:36 AM, David Laight wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:42:41 +0100
> Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 07. 03. 25, 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    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 me as well, I've made the same comment before.
> When reading code I don't want to have to look up a function definition.
> There is even scope for having parity_odd() and parity_even().
> And, with the version that shifts a constant right you want to invert
> the constant!
> 
> 	David

This is really a question of whether you expect odd or even parity as
the "true" value. I think that would depend on context, and we may not
reach a good consensus.

I do agree that my brain would jump to "true is even, false is odd".
However, I also agree returning the value as 0 for even and 1 for odd
kind of made sense before, and updating this to be a bool and then
requiring to switch all the callers is a bit obnoxious...