Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Use for_each_bit

[Akinobu Mita]

2010/2/1 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:06:10 +0200 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > __#define for_each_cpupri_active(array, idx) __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __\
>> > - __for (idx = find_first_bit(array, CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES); __ __ \
>> > - __ __ __ idx < CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES; __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __\
>> > - __ __ __ idx = find_next_bit(array, CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES, idx+1))
>> > + __ __ __ for_each_bit(idx, array, CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES)
>>
>> It should be called for_each_set_bit().
>
> Agree.

(I'm resending because I failed to reply all)

You mean for_each_bit() should be renamed to for_each_set_bit() ?

I'm not sure. But if so, find_first_bit() also should be renamed to
find_first_set_bit() and so on?
--
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/