> I'm scratching my head over that min_t in __first_node(), too. I don't think > it's possible for find_first_bit(..., N) to return anything >N _anyway_. And > if > it does, we want to know about it. > > <looks at Paul>
I'm not sure I've got this right, but looks like that min_t went in after Zwane Mwaikambo, then <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, whom I am presuming is the same person as now at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, found a problem with the i386 find_next_bit implementation returning > N when merging i386 cpu hotplug. See the thread: http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/31/102 [PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS I apparently lobbied at the time to mandate that find_first_bit(..., N) return exactly N on failure to find a set bit, but gave up, after some confusions on my part. Adding Zwane to this thread -- the other participant on that thread, Bill Irwin, is already on the CC list. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
