Le 23/08/2016 à 11:23, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:20:28 AM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
[...]
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
[...]
You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
why is it better than the existing code?
Arnd
Hi,
sorry if my explanation was unclear.
What I mean is that if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 4" (i.e. 32 bits systems
?) then:
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use));
turns into:
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, 4);
find_first_zero_bit "Returns the bit number of the first set bit. If no bits are set, returns @size."
So, in this case, it can return 1, 2, 3 or 4, if one of the 4 first bits is 0.
And will also return 4, if none of the 4 first bits is 0.
Ah, got it.
Finally, what I meant by "Other options are possible:" is:
- 'vt8500_ports_in_use' being a 'unsigned long', use ffz to reduce code verbosity
port = ffz(&vt8500_ports_in_use);
would also work, because it is equivalent to:
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, BITS_PER_LONG);
- VT8500_MAX_PORTS, in order to be consistent with the test below
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
would also work and is maybe more logical in regard to the test "if (port >= VT8500_MAX_PORTS)"
Now if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 8" (i.e. 64 bits systems ?), the actual code would work.
But using "sizeof(long)" to mean "more than VT8500_MAX_PORTS" is odd.
In other words, expressing a number of bits using something that gives a size in bytes is, IMHO, spurious.
All this is pure speculation.
Hoping that it is clearer now ( and that my analysis is right :) )
I misread the code in the same way the original author wrote it wrong,
I guess it was meant to say
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use) * 8);
I guess so.
to convert number of bytes into number of bits. Your patch is absolutely
correct, but being more specific about the kind of mistake that was made
is a good idea.
Regarding which of the four alternatives to use, I'd probably use
your third one, checking against VT8500_MAX_PORTS. To make this code
absolutely foolproof, we can add this hunk too then:
Agreed for VT8500_MAX_PORTS. This documents the code.
Using DECLARE_BITMAP is also nice (even if I doubt that it will be
useful one day in this particular case)
It would turn the vt8500_ports_in_use variable into a pointer. So some
more code modification would be required.
Thk for your feedback and comments.
I'll send a v2.
CJ
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
index 23cfc5e16b45..a68be66d2770 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ struct vt8500_port {
* have been allocated as we can't use pdev->id in
* devicetree
*/
-static unsigned long vt8500_ports_in_use;
+static DECLARE_BITMAP(vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
static inline void vt8500_write(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int val,
unsigned int off)
Arnd
---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
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
