Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Aug 2004 06:10:04 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS |
| |
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 06:05:29AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > Either way - we need consistency. Either find_next_bit(.., size, ...) > returns exactly size if no more bits, or all its callers tolerate any > return >= size. > I probably prefer the former, because I expect slightly tighter kernel > code now (see my previous post on text size), and fewer bugs in the > future (more clients of find_next_bit will be coded than new > implementations of it), if we go this way. William's comments suggest > to me he prefers the later. > Either (or both) seems better than what we have. > William - can you read the find_next_bit() implementations in some other > arch's well enough to understand if they are anal about returning > exactly 'size', or content to return something >= size, when they run > out of bits? That code was a bit denser than I could deal with easily. > If a strong majority of the arch's find_next_bit() are anal, or on the > other hand, are not, then I'd suggest we follow their lead.
A strong majority return BITS_PER_LONG-aligned results in this case.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |