[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406041137270.2441@hadrien>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, iss_storagedev@...com,
scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] use safer test on the result of
find_first_zero_bit
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr> 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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists