On 3/18/11, Sven Eckelmann sven@narfation.org wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2011 23:40:06 hlabishi kobo wrote:
Hi thank you very much for your suggestions Sven, they were really helpful. i actually now put the below code down which i am still busy trying to test it.
int weighted_bit_packet_count(TYPE_OF_WORD *seq_bits) { int i,check, count = 0; int j; //TYPE_OF_WORD *word; int word;
for (i = 0; i < NUM_WORDS; i++) { word = seq_bits[i];
for (j = 0; j < 32; j++){ check = (word & (1 << j)) >> j; if (check == 1) count += j; }printk("our count is %d\n", count); return count; } //printk("our count is %d\n", count); //return count; } When i am using it on two PC's my ping seems to be recording much delay. I will appreciate your feedback in this regard. Thank you and kind Regards
Thank you very much Sven. Your feedback have been really helpful.
Ehrm, you know that you ignore the fact that seq_bits[i] may be 64 bits?
I actually printed the seq_bits[i] and that is basically why i used 32 but that was just for debugging purpose. But actually if i use NUM_WORDS, my weighted sum become very small whereas if i use 32 it becomes very big, trying to understand what might be causing it to be that way. And
you only calculate the weighted sum of a single "word" (which you static casted to int....?) and not all words.
i actually dont understand this very well, how many words does seq_bits[i] have? And the sum is still wrong weighted
(you still give zero weight for the newest one and increase the weight for the older).
Thanks for letting alerting me about this, i hv now changed from ascending to descending order. And the way you check the bits is even for a sequential
implementation overly complex. And it is normal that printk heavily increase the amount of time... maybe you meant that by delay.
even if i comment out the printk() statement its still carries with the delay.
Sry, I have really no idea what I should say to it.
Regards, Sven
Kind Regards Hlabishi