Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:50:14 +0300 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: Re [PATCH v2] lib: optimize cpumask_next_and() |
| |
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Clement Courbet wrote: > Thanks for the comments Yury. > > > But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with > > _find_next_bit_le() > > Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a > find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more > like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge > it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)
Both ways will work, but I think that extra is_le is too much. _find_next_bit_le() should be the copy of _find_next_bit() with the addition of swapping code.
If you don't need find_next_and_bit_le(), don't add it. find_{first,last}_bit() doesn't have LE version, for example.
Yury
| |