> I'm scratching my head over that min_t in __first_node(), too. I don't think
> it's possible for find_first_bit(..., N) to return anything >N _anyway_. And if
> it does, we want to know about it.
>
> <looks at Paul>
I'm not sure I've got this right, but looks like that min_t went in after
Zwane Mwaikambo, then <[email protected]>, whom I am presuming is the same
person as now at <[email protected]>, found a problem with the i386
find_next_bit implementation returning > N when merging i386 cpu hotplug.
See the thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/31/102
[PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS
I apparently lobbied at the time to mandate that find_first_bit(..., N)
return exactly N on failure to find a set bit, but gave up, after some
confusions on my part.
Adding Zwane to this thread -- the other participant on that thread,
Bill Irwin, is already on the CC list.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]