From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:35:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of find_first_zero_bit Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> In-Reply-To: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: driverdevel , linux-s390 , Linux Fbdev development list , scsi , iss_storagedev@hp.com, Linux-sh list , linux-rdma , linux-wireless , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" 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? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds