On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:20:28 AM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> > [...]
> > Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
> >
> > [...]
> > You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
> > why is it better than the existing code?
> >
> > Arnd
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry if my explanation was unclear.
>
> What I mean is that if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 4" (i.e. 32 bits systems
> ?) then:
>
> port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use,
> sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use));
> turns into:
> port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, 4);
>
> find_first_zero_bit "Returns the bit number of the first set bit. If no bits
> are set, returns @size."
> So, in this case, it can return 1, 2, 3 or 4, if one of the 4 first bits is 0.
> And will also return 4, if none of the 4 first bits is 0.
Ah, got it.
>
> Finally, what I meant by "Other options are possible:" is:
> - 'vt8500_ports_in_use' being a 'unsigned long', use ffz to reduce code
> verbosity
> port = ffz(&vt8500_ports_in_use);
> would also work, because it is equivalent to:
> port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, BITS_PER_LONG);
>
> - VT8500_MAX_PORTS, in order to be consistent with the test below
> port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
> would also work and is maybe more logical in regard to the test "if
> (port >= VT8500_MAX_PORTS)"
>
>
>
> Now if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 8" (i.e. 64 bits systems ?), the actual code
> would work.
> But using "sizeof(long)" to mean "more than VT8500_MAX_PORTS" is odd.
> In other words, expressing a number of bits using something that gives a size
> in bytes is, IMHO, spurious.
>
> All this is pure speculation.
>
> Hoping that it is clearer now ( and that my analysis is right :) )
I misread the code in the same way the original author wrote it wrong,
I guess it was meant to say
port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use,
sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use) * 8);
to convert number of bytes into number of bits. Your patch is absolutely
correct, but being more specific about the kind of mistake that was made
is a good idea.
Regarding which of the four alternatives to use, I'd probably use
your third one, checking against VT8500_MAX_PORTS. To make this code
absolutely foolproof, we can add this hunk too then:
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
index 23cfc5e16b45..a68be66d2770 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ struct vt8500_port {
* have been allocated as we can't use pdev->id in
* devicetree
*/
-static unsigned long vt8500_ports_in_use;
+static DECLARE_BITMAP(vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
static inline void vt8500_write(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int val,
unsigned int off)
Arnd
