[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070608081944.GA12687@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 04:19:44 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 34/54] Fix roundup_pow_of_two(1)
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:22:01AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> ---------------------
>
> From: Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>
>
> Fix roundup_pow_of_two(1)
>
> 1 is a power of two, therefore roundup_pow_of_two(1) should return 1. It does
> in case the argument is a variable but in case it's a constant it behaves
> wrong and returns 0. Probably nobody ever did it so this was never noticed.
If this doesn't fix a user-visiable bug, should we be including it in
the stable patch series? (Assuming that it doesn't, I wouldn't, but I
tend to be more conservative about what I would include in a stable
production release.)
Regards,
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists