On Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:20:25 PM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> The 2nd parameter of 'find_first_zero_bit' is the number of bits to search.
> In this case, we are passing 'sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use)'.
> 'vt8500_ports_in_use' is an 'unsigned long'. So the sizeof is likely to
> return 4.
>
> A few lines below, we check if it is below VT8500_MAX_PORTS, which is 6.
>
> It is likely that the number of bits in a long was expected here, so use
> BITS_PER_LONG instead.
>
>
> It has been spotted by the following coccinelle script:
> @@
> expression ret, x;
>
> @@
> * ret = \(find_first_bit \| find_first_zero_bit\) (x, sizeof(...));
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> Other options are possible:
> - 'vt8500_ports_in_use' being a 'unsigned long', use ffz to reduce
> code verbosity
> - VT8500_MAX_PORTS, in order to be consistent with the test below
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
> b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
> index 23cfc5e16b45..935076c50cb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
> @@ -664,7 +664,7 @@ static int vt8500_serial_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> if (port < 0) {
> /* calculate the port id */
> port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use,
> - sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use));
> + BITS_PER_LONG);
> }
You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
why is it better than the existing code?
Arnd
