On 1/31/14, 9:28 AM, Jeff Liu wrote:
> On 01/31 2014 23:07 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 1/31/14, 8:13 AM, Jeff Liu wrote:
>>> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> There is no need to travel through the whole bitmap items to verify
>>> if the bitmap array is empty or not, instead, just return 0 directly
>>> if an item is detected in bitmap array.
>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Makes sense (and the long loop was my fault, I guess, but it's
>> better than it was, see commit 24ad33f!)
> Ah, you have killed a lots code there! :)
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> I wonder if something like:
>> return (find_first_set(map, size) == size);
>> would be faster (or if it'd be worth it)...?
>> Probably not. :)
> Well, when I looking through our bitmap source, I once thought if
> we can replace the current code with the generic bitmap library.
> However, our map is uint rather than unsigned long...
Technically the unsigned long (pointer) is just the bitmap address,
> Otherwise, maybe some like find_first_bit(map, size) would be
> more convenient.