On Wed, 04/26 11:36, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 26.04.2017 um 05:33 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > This is the order of the largest possible permission.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/block/block.h | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/block/block.h b/include/block/block.h
> > index eb0565d..a798f10 100644
> > --- a/include/block/block.h
> > +++ b/include/block/block.h
> > @@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ enum {
> > BLK_PERM_ALL = 0x1f,
> > };
> >
> > +#define BLK_PERM_MAX (64 - clz64((uint64_t)BLK_PERM_ALL))
>
> Contrary to the commit message, this is the number of permission bits in
> use (i.e. one more than the largest possible permission). You're using
> it correctly, though, because your loop condition is i < BLK_PERM_MAX.
>
> This could use an updated commit message and a comment at the #define at
> least. Ideally a less ambiguous name instead of the commit (because _MAX
> seems to imply what the commit message currently says, not what it
> really is), but I can't think of one.
Good point.
Given it another thought, using BLK_PERM_ALL in the loop condition is as easy.
I'll drop this patch.
Fam
