Re: [PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 06:05:29AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Either way - we need consistency.  Either find_next_bit(.., size, ...)
> returns exactly size if no more bits, or all its callers tolerate any
> return >= size.
> I probably prefer the former, because I expect slightly tighter kernel
> code now (see my previous post on text size), and fewer bugs in the
> future (more clients of find_next_bit will be coded than new
> implementations of it), if we go this way.  William's comments suggest
> to me he prefers the later.
> Either (or both) seems better than what we have.
> William - can you read the find_next_bit() implementations in some other
> arch's well enough to understand if they are anal about returning
> exactly 'size', or content to return something >= size, when they run
> out of bits?  That code was a bit denser than I could deal with easily.
> If a strong majority of the arch's find_next_bit() are anal, or on the
> other hand, are not, then I'd suggest we follow their lead.

A strong majority return BITS_PER_LONG-aligned results in this case.


-- wli