On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, David Laight wrote: > 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). Currently, most of the calls test with >=, and most of the others seem to need to (either the size value did not look like a multiple of anything in particular, or it was eg read from a device). Note that it is BITS_PER_LONG, so it seems like it is typically 32 or 64, not 8. > Maybe the documented return code should be changed to allow for the > existing behaviour. Sorry, I'm not sure to understand what you suggest here. thanks, julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
