Re: find_next_bit return type

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 
> It's kind of pukey that the size and offset passed in is
> unsigned long yet the return type is 'int'.

`size' and `offset' should be unsigned ints.

> Frankly, I think the 64-bit systems have the prototype correct
> this time and x86 is what ought to be "fixed" :-)
> 
> Just think, it only takes a "4GB / 8" sized bitmap to
> potentially overflow that int return value :)))
> 
> Come on Andrew, you had to cringe at least a smidgen when
> making these diffs :)

Kind-of.  But it's also cringeworthy to go slinging 8-byte values around
when 4-byte values would suffice.  Is it not more efficient to use
integers?