On 8/27/2016 1:25 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 26/08/2016 à 15:35, Doug Ledford a écrit : >> On 8/26/2016 12:49 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >>> The 2nd parameter of 'find_first_bit' is the number of bits to search. >>> In this case, we are passing 'sizeof(unsigned long)' which is likely to >>> be 4 or 8. >> If the size can be 4 or 8, then using 64 universally is not correct. >> Why not use sizeof() * 8 (or << 3)? > I agree with you... > > BTW, the log message is wrong. 'port_mask' is a u64. (not an unsigned > long). So the sizeof should always be 8. > (cut and paste error from another patch, sorry) Log message modified, then patch modified to use sizeof() * 8, result applied. Thanks. >> >>> It is likely that the number of bits of 'port_mask' was expected >>> here. This >>> variable is a 'u64', so use 64 instead. >>> >>> It has been spotted by the following coccinelle script: >>> @@ >>> expression ret, x; >>> >>> @@ >>> * ret = \(find_first_bit \| find_first_zero_bit\) (x, sizeof(...)); >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET >>> <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Not sure that using 64 directly is the best option. >>> Maybe '8 * sizeof(port_mask)' as used in the same file for >>> 'for_each_set_bit' would be better >>> --- > ... as noted here > > Would you like a v2 patch or, will you update it by yourself? > > Best regards, > CJ > > --- > L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le > logiciel antivirus Avast. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > -- Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
