On 9/10/18 11:49 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
-int64_t hbitmap_next_zero(const HBitmap *hb, uint64_t start);
+int64_t hbitmap_next_zero(const HBitmap *hb, uint64_t start,
int64_t end);
The interface looks weird because we can define a 'start' that's beyond
the 'end'.
I realize that you need a signed integer for 'end' to signify EOF...
should we do a 'bytes' parameter instead? (Did you already do that
in an
earlier version and we changed it?)
Well, it's not a big deal to me personally.
interface with constant end parameter is more comfortable for loop:
we don't need to update 'bytes' parameter on each iteration
But there's still the question of WHO should be calculating end. Your
interface argues for the caller:
hbitmap_next_zero(start, start + bytes)
int64_t hbitmap_next_zero(...)
{
while (offset != end) ...
}
while we're asking about a consistent interface for the caller (if
most callers already have a 'bytes' rather than an 'end' computed):
hbitmap_next_zero(start, bytes)
int64_t hbitmap_next_zero(...)
{
int64_t end = start + bytes;
while (offset != end) ...
}