[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.019 / U:6.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site