21 Mar
2011
21 Mar
'11
10:40 p.m.
On 3/18/11, Sven Eckelmann <sven(a)narfation.org> wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2011 23:40:06 hlabishi kobo
wrote:
Thank you very much Sven. Your feedback have been really helpful.
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
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