| To: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: ffs() |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:23:51 -0700 |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, nathans@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406031517340.3403@ppc970.osdl.org> |
| References: | <20040603143710.326e56ca.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406031504031.3403@ppc970.osdl.org> <20040603151009.6edd1c0b.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406031517340.3403@ppc970.osdl.org> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > [ Nathan, the issue is that XFS calls ffs() potentially with an arg > > value of zero which is illegal and has undefined behavior, the > > XFS code is depending upon ffs() returning -1 in this case. ] > > Hmm. It can't depend on -1, since at least on x86, it returns zero. > > Do you mean "depend on 0"? Duh you're right, I saw that "-1" in the x86 asm and that confused me :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: ffs(), Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] can, Chasity Boston |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: ffs(), Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: ffs(), Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |