On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 06:50:14PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Clement Courbet wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments Yury.
> >
> > > But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with
> > > _find_next_bit_le()
> >
> > Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a
> > find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more
> > like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge
> > it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)
>
> Both ways will work, but I think that extra is_le is too much.
> _find_next_bit_le() should be the copy of _find_next_bit() with the
> addition of swapping code.
>
> If you don't need find_next_and_bit_le(), don't add it.
> find_{first,last}_bit() doesn't have LE version, for example.
Few comments more.
_find_next_bit is now referenced also by find_next_and_bit(), and
so it should be added to guard code:
#if !defined(find_next_bit) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit)
|| !defined(find_next_and_bit)
static unsigned long _find_next_bit( ... )
{
...
}
#endif
It may be essential at least for arm.
Don't forget to synchronize your changes with
tools/lib/find_bit.c
Thanks,
Yury
