Re: [PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Matthew Dobson <colpatch@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> >  #define first_cpu(src) __first_cpu(&(src), NR_CPUS)
> >  static inline int __first_cpu(const cpumask_t *srcp, int nbits)
> >  {
> > -	return find_first_bit(srcp->bits, nbits);
> > +	return min_t(int, nbits, find_first_bit(srcp->bits, nbits));
> >  }
> >  
> >  #define next_cpu(n, src) __next_cpu((n), &(src), NR_CPUS)
> >  static inline int __next_cpu(int n, const cpumask_t *srcp, int nbits)
> >  {
> > -	return find_next_bit(srcp->bits, nbits, n+1);
> > +	return min_t(int, nbits, find_next_bit(srcp->bits, nbits, n+1));
> >  }

>  #define first_node(src) __first_node(&(src), MAX_NUMNODES)
>  static inline int __first_node(const nodemask_t *srcp, int nbits)
>  {
> -	return find_first_bit(srcp->bits, nbits);
> +	return min_t(int, nbits, find_first_bit(srcp->bits, nbits));
>  }
>  
>  #define next_node(n, src) __next_node((n), &(src), MAX_NUMNODES)
>  static inline int __next_node(int n, const nodemask_t *srcp, int nbits)
>  {
> -	return find_next_bit(srcp->bits, nbits, n+1);
> +	return min_t(int, nbits, find_next_bit(srcp->bits, nbits, n+1));
>  }

Shouldn't these use simply min()?  I worry min_t() may hide the real bug...
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
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/