From: Julia Lawall
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > Hi Julia,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > OK, thanks. I was only looking at the C code.
> > >
> > > But the C code contains a loop that is followed by:
> > >
> > > if (!size)
> > >
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > OK, thanks. I was only looking at the C code.
> >
> > But the C code contains a loop that is followed by:
> >
> > if (!size)
> > return result;
> >
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> OK, thanks. I was only looking at the C code.
>
> But the C code contains a loop that is followed by:
>
> if (!size)
> return result;
> tmp = *p;
>
> found_first:
> tmp |= ~0UL << size;
>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> Maybe the documented return code should be changed to allow for the
> >> existing behaviour.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not sure to understand what you suggest here.
>
> include/asm-g
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Maybe the documented return code should be changed to allow for the
>> existing behaviour.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure to understand what you suggest here.
include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h:
| /**
| * find_first_zero_bit - find the
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, David Laight wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Julia,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall
> > > wrote:
> > > > Find_first_zero_bit considers BITS_PER_LONG bits at a time, and thus may
> > > > ret
From: Julia Lawall
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > Hi Julia,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall 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 po
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall 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
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Julia Lawall 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_
