From: Julia Lawall > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Hi Julia, > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Find_first_zero_bit considers BITS_PER_LONG bits at a time, and thus may > > > return a larger number than the maximum position argument if that position > > > is not a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG. > > > > Shouldn't this be fixed in find_first_zero_bit() instead? > > OK, I could do that as well. Most of the callers currently test with >=. > Should they be left as is, or changed to use ==? Do we want to add an extra test to find_first_zero_bit() and effectively slow down all the calls - especially those where the length is a multiple of 8 (probably the most common). Maybe the documented return code should be changed to allow for the existing behaviour. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
