Re: [PATCH] docs: document zero bits in index "mode"

From: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2023, 02:46 UTC
Message-ID: <kl6lzg9yw19a.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230201024041.29401-1-chooglen@google.com>

Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

>>                 The existing explanation starts with "32-bit mode,
>> split into (high to low bits)", followed by "4-bit object type", as
>> if the "4-bit object type" occupies bits 29-32, which is not quite
>> what we want to say.
>
> If I am understanding you correctly (which I'm not sure, since I am
> honestly clueless about bit numbering and big endianness and whatnot),
> you're saying that highest 16 bits are zero, not the lowest? If so, then
> I genuinely made that mistake, hah.
>
> (We're storing 16 bits as bigendian 32 bits, so they would occupy the
> lower 16 bits, right..?)
>
> Perhaps something like this would be better. I took the "unused, must be
> zero" phrasing from elsewhere in the doc. And if I am completely
> off-base, feel free to patch it without waiting for my reroll if you
> think that's easier.

Whoops, this was meant to be a reply to https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqmt5yy08d.fsf@gitster.g. That's what I get for trying to write the In-Reply-To by hand.