Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: improve the general precision of tnum_mul

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25/08/25 21:54, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 09:46 +0530, Nandakumar Edamana wrote:
Status as of now:

DECIDED:

1. Replace the current outer comment for the new tnum_mul() with a
     cleaner explanation and the example from the README of the test
     program.

2. (Related to PATCH 2/2) Drop the trivial tests.

UNDECIDED:

Instead of just doing tnum_mul(a, b),

a) whether to do best(tnum_mul(a, b), tnum_mul(b, a))
b) whether to do best(best(tnum_mul(a, b), tnum_mul(b, a)),
                        best(tnum_mul_old(a, b), tnum_mul_old(b, a)))
I'd drop both undecided points.
Shall I send v5 with the decided changes then?

--
Nandakumar





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux