2022-06-01 08:55:58

by Jui-Tse Huang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] average: Clarify the restrictions

There is several restrictions in the EWMA helper macro that the
developers should take care of, but the comment does not mentioned yet,
thus, this patch clarify the restrictions.

Signed-off-by: Jui-Tse Huang <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/average.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/average.h b/include/linux/average.h
index a1a8f09631ce..1618f6519c3d 100644
--- a/include/linux/average.h
+++ b/include/linux/average.h
@@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
* precision and fall-off coefficient determined at compile-time
* and built into the generated helper funtions.
*
+ * This implementation supports upto 30 bits of precition, and for
+ * usage concern, only the api of fetching non-fractional part is
+ * provided for now.
+ *
* The first argument to the macro is the name that will be used
* for the struct and helper functions.
*
--
2.34.1



2022-06-01 21:23:29

by Bruno Randolf

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] average: Clarify the restrictions

On 01/06/2022 07:57, Jui-Tse Huang wrote:
> There is several restrictions in the EWMA helper macro that the
> developers should take care of, but the comment does not mentioned yet,
> thus, this patch clarify the restrictions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jui-Tse Huang <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/average.h | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/average.h b/include/linux/average.h
> index a1a8f09631ce..1618f6519c3d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/average.h
> +++ b/include/linux/average.h
> @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
> * precision and fall-off coefficient determined at compile-time
> * and built into the generated helper funtions.
> *
> + * This implementation supports upto 30 bits of precition, and for

spelling: up to ... precision

> + * usage concern, only the api of fetching non-fractional part is
> + * provided for now.

spelling: "API for"

wording: remove "and for usage concern", just ", and only the API for"
would be enough.

Thank you,
bruno