On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:46:24PM +0900, Levi Yun wrote:
> Inspired find_next_*_bit and find_last_bit, add find_last_zero_bit
> And add le support about find_last_bit and find_last_zero_bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Levi Yun <ppbuk5...@gmail.com>
> ---
> lib/find_bit.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/find_bit.c b/lib/find_bit.c
> index 4a8751010d59..f9dda2bf7fa9 100644
> --- a/lib/find_bit.c
> +++ b/lib/find_bit.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ unsigned long find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long size,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_zero_bit);
> #endif
>
> -#if !defined(find_next_and_bit)
> +#ifndef find_next_and_bit
> unsigned long find_next_and_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
> const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long size,
> unsigned long offset)
> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ unsigned long find_last_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long size)
> {
> if (size) {
> unsigned long val = BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(size);
> - unsigned long idx = (size-1) / BITS_PER_LONG;
> + unsigned long idx = (size - 1) / BITS_PER_LONG;
>
> do {
> val &= addr[idx];
This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
might not want to include them.
Also, why is this patch series even needed? I don't see a justification
for it anywhere, only "what" this patch is, not "why".
thanks
greg k-h
