They are the same, but I don't think the compiler can optimize it.
And it also helps for understanding the following code.
[ Edit by Mathieu Desnoyers:
- Add a comment that describes the equivalence between get_count_order
and fls for this lookup of index + 1. ]
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
assert(size > 0);
index = hash & (size - 1);
- order = get_count_order_ulong(index + 1);
+ /*
+ * equivalent to get_count_order_ulong(index + 1), but optimizes
+ * away the non-existing 0 special-case for
+ * get_count_order_ulong.
+ */
+ order = fls_ulong(index);
dbg_printf("lookup hash %lu index %lu order %lu aridx %lu\n",
hash, index, order, index & (!order ? 0 : ((1UL << (order - 1)) - 1)));