On 18/07/2022 21.28, Yury Norov wrote: > Don't test bitmap_set(bitmap, start, 0) as it's useless, most probably > a sign of error in real code, No it's not. The nbits can easily be the result of some computation that ended up resulting in 0 being the right number to copy (or set, or whatnot), and it's not unreasonable to _not_ check in the caller for that special case, but rather rely on bitmap_set() to behave sanely - it has perfectly well-defined semantics to "set 0 bits starting at @start". The same way that memset() and memcpy() and memcmp() and countless other functions have perfectly well-defined semantics with a length of 0, and we don't add caller-side checks for those either. NAK on this series. Rasmus
