bit testing nervousness...

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Hey...

WRT all these test_bit()/set_bit() cleanups.   I am a bit nervous about
these changes that are coming in...

When I see types change from "u8" or "u32" to "long" just to make
<foo>_bit() work, that really makes me think that cleanup is wrong.  I
haven't looked closely at the recent set_bit() cleanups yet, but I am
willing to bet that at least some of them are wrongly changing the size
of a variable's type.

My preference would be to _eliminate_ the set_bit call and simply
open-code the bitop, i.e.
	set_bit(bitnum, &foo);
become
	foo |= (1 << bitnum);
	
Really, for each cleanup, you need to look hard at the change and
see if <foo>_bit() is being used for atomicity reasons or simply
programmer preference.  (and other issues like endian issues)  The
latter can easily be changed to open-coding.

Disclaimer, my argument is null and void if each change has been closely
studied and is really correct :)  However I'm guessing we all are only
glancing at the changes :)

	Jeff