On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 01:59:33PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 2018-10-14 06:19, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > a bit value of 0 in the > > bits array does not necessarily mean the input was not requested, but > > may instead mean that the value at the input is 0; > > sure enough, but... > > > therefore, the caller > > must keep track of the requested inputs rather than try to deduce them > > from the values in the bits array. > > ...I don't agree that this logically follows. A caller might reasonably > expect not to find any bits set in positions other than those in mask. A > simple example would be caller that just tried to ask "are any of > _these_ inputs set"; it would be reasonable to implement that using > bitmap_empty() on the returned bitset, without first having to mask by > the mask he passed in. > > Rasmus I see your point. It would be good to keep the behavior consistent with what would be expected by the user -- and adding an additional AND operation at the end to mask away the unrequested bits should not really affect the performance to a discernible degree -- so I'll submit a patchset implementing the mask for these drivers some time this weekend. William Breathitt Gray
