From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Laight Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:46:17 +0000 Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of find_first_zero_bit Message-Id: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1725705F@AcuExch.aculab.com> List-Id: References: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: 'Julia Lawall' , Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-rdma , "kernel-janitors-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux-sh list , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "ath10k-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , linux-wireless , "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , driverdevel , "iss_storagedev-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org" , scsi , linux-s390 , "adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org" From: Julia Lawall > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Hi Julia, > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall 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). Maybe the documented return code should be changed to allow for the existing behaviour. David