From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net: dsa: Remove VLA usage
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:59:01 +0000
Message-ID: <6e5b57f59ca6420489d65392a1e8dbc8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20180717041034.GA37382@beast> <20180729113806.GC7333@amd>
 <20180729114006.GA11104@amd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: 'Pavel Machek' <pavel@ucw.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180729114006.GA11104@amd>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Pavel Machek
> Sent: 29 July 2018 12:40
...
> > > +	unsigned long		*bitmap;
> > > +	unsigned long		_bitmap;
> >
> > This looks rather confusing. _bitmap -> bitmap_data? bitmap_bits?
> 
> Actually, AFAICT that long is not used as a long, but as array of
> bits. So maybe char bitmap_data[8] would be more appropriate?

Unfortunately the 'bitmap' functions are defined to work in a 
specific way on unsigned long[].
This means, for example, that they can't use the x86 'bit' instructions.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)