From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of find_first_zero_bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org List-Archive: To: Geert Uytterhoeven 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, Julia Lawall , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: 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 ==? julia _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k