On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:22:58PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> Hmm, no, I don't think so? count==0 here iff we have tested as many
> bits as the caller requested. So this code will bail out if the number
> of bits to test is not large enough to even hit a byte boundary, or if
> the last bit to test and the byte boundary coincide. Perhaps count
> should be renamed to something like bits_left_to_test if it's
> confusing now?
Ah, you're right, my bad. I managed to confuse myself with !count.
In cases where we're not dealing with a boolean value, it's actually
better to write (count == 0), for this reason.
> I agree that a regression test is needed. I'll look into writing that.
If you could work on improving tst_bitmaps, that would be great. Thanks!!
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
