From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of find_first_zero_bit Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1401872880-23685-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Julia Lawall , linux-rdma , "kernel-janitors-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux-sh list , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , ath10k-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-wireless , "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , driverdevel , iss_storagedev-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org, scsi , linux-s390 , adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html