qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more oper


From: Wei Wang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 19:47:29 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 12/14/2017 11:47 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
On 12/13/2017 10:16 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:



                          if (set)
                                  ret = find_next_bit(&tmp,
BITS_PER_LONG, ebit);
                          else
                                  ret = find_next_zero_bit(&tmp,
BITS_PER_LONG,
ebit);
                          if (ret < BITS_PER_LONG)
                                  return ret - 2 + ida_start;
                  } else if (bitmap) {
                          if (set)
                                  ret = find_next_bit(bitmap->bitmap,
IDA_BITMAP_BITS, bit);
                          else
ret = find_next_zero_bit(bitmap->bitmap,
IDA_BITMAP_BITS, bit);
"bit" may not be 0 for the first round and "bit" is always 0 afterwords.
But where is the guaranteed that "end" is a multiple of IDA_BITMAP_BITS ?
Please explain why it is correct to use IDA_BITMAP_BITS unconditionally
for the last round.

There missed something here, it will be:

nbits = min(end - ida_start + 1, IDA_BITMAP_BITS - bit);


captured a bug here, should be:
nbits = min(end - ida_start + 1, (unsigned long)IDA_BITMAP_BITS);


if (set)
    ret = find_next_bit(bitmap->bitmap, nbits, bit);
else
    ret = find_next_zero_bit(bitmap->bitmap,
                                           nbits, bit);
if (ret < nbits)
    return ret + ida_start;



Best,
Wei







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]