Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: bitmap and bitop tweaks [1/22]

[Matthew Dobson]

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 15:43, Paul Jackson wrote:
> My thinking on when to worry about the unused bits, and when not to, is
> thus.
> 
> For the lib/bitmap.c code, it seems that the existing standard, followed
> by everything except bitmap_complement(), is to not set any unused bits
> (at least when called with correct arguments in range), but to always
> filter them out when testing for some Boolean condition or scalar result
> (weight).

Ok...  I see why you are masking off those bits now.  Thanks for the
explanation.


> The bitmap stuff probably does more checking than I would like, but I
> felt it was more important to be consistent there, as bitmaps are an
> exposed API in their own right.  Either add unused bit zeroing and
> filtering in the remaining places (complement and the new subset and
> intersects), or rip it all out.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/