2016-01-22 05:12+0000, Wu, Feng: >> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrc...@redhat.com] >> 2016-01-20 09:42+0800, Feng Wu: >> > +{ >> > + u32 mod; >> > + int i, idx = 0; >> > + >> > + mod = vector % dest_vcpus; >> > + >> > + for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) { >> > + idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx) + 1; >> >> I'd remove this "+ 1". Current users don't check for errors and always >> do "- 1". The new error value could be 'idx = bitmap_size', with u32 as >> return type. >> > > Does the following code look good to you: > > u32 mod; > int i, idx = -1; > > mod = vector % dest_vcpus; > > for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) { > idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx + 1); > BUG_ON(idx == bitmap_size); > } > > return idx;
It's ok, thanks.
