On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch adds __find_next_bit() -- static-inline variant of find_next_bit()
> optimized for small constant size arrays, because find_next_bit() is too heavy
> for searching in an array with one/two long elements.
> And unlike to find_next_bit() it does not mask tail bits.
Does anybody else really want this? My gut feel is that this
shouldn't be inline at all (the same is largely true of the existing
ones), and that nobody else really wants this. Nor do we want to
introduce yet another helper function that has very subtly different
semantics that will just confuse people.
So I suspect this should be instead a function that is internal to the
iterator code.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href