From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:22918 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432AbaFDJiV (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 05:38:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Geert Uytterhoeven cc: Julia Lawall , linux-rdma , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux-sh list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , driverdevel , iss_storagedev@hp.com, scsi , linux-s390 , adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of find_first_zero_bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (sfid-20140604_113831_828855_4AD18846) References: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@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