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

[Andrew Morton]

OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  >  #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...

The problem is that on some architectures, find_next_bit() returns an
unsigned long, on others it returns an int and I think some even return a
long.
-
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/