On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Clement Courbet wrote:
> Thanks for the comments Yury.
>
> > But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with
> > _find_next_bit_le()
>
> Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a
> find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more
> like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge
> it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)
Both ways will work, but I think that extra is_le is too much.
_find_next_bit_le() should be the copy of _find_next_bit() with the
addition of swapping code.
If you don't need find_next_and_bit_le(), don't add it.
find_{first,last}_bit() doesn't have LE version, for example.
Yury
