On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:25:43AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > If you want to go that far, you can choose to use lib/bsearch.c too in > case you want to reinvent the wheel.
Well, that doesn't give me the @to functionality which points to the slot where the new element should be inserted, when the search was unsuccessful. > What's your point here? My point is to fix it properly. Obviously. > You know my fix is targeted for -stable, Well, first you sent me this: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416012001.5338-1-xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com then this: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416213351.28999-1-xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com Tony liked this second version more and if you look at the final result of mine: int min = 0, max = ca->n - 1; ... if (this_pfn < pfn) min = i + 1; else if (this_pfn > pfn) max = i - 1; else if (this_pfn == pfn) { if (to) *to = i; return i; } it has basically *both*: the correct [min:max] range *and* the return of ithe ndex when found. But the algorithm this time is the correct one. > I doubt your 83-line change could fit for -stable. My 83-line change has debug output only for experimentation. It will, *of* *course* be removed before committing it upstream. That's why I called it "a conglomerate patch" and I said "It has some debug output for easier debugging, that will be removed in the final version, of course." I guess you didn't read that either. And the sanity_check() piece will be a separate patch, of course. In the end the diffstat will be 30-40 lines max. > Feel free to drop my patch to favor yours. I am really tired. Suit yourself. Thanks for the reporting. > Good luck with that! Ditto. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
