Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:60444 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753762Ab1BOAEh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:04:37 -0500 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so3547006qwa.19 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:04:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1297727969.5683.21.camel@maggie> References: <1297725710.5683.17.camel@maggie> <1297727969.5683.21.camel@maggie> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:04:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: Make ssb_wait_bit multi-bit safe From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= Cc: John Linville , b43-dev , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: W dniu 15 lutego 2011 00:59 użytkownik Michael Büsch napisał: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 00:44 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> 2011/2/15 Michael Büsch : >> > ssb_wait_bit was designed for only one-bit bitmasks. >> > People start using it for multi-bit bitmasks. Make the "set" case >> > is safe for this. The "unset" case is already safe. >> >> Thanks :) > > This should not change the behavior of your patch, though, > as you only add an "unset" case, which was already correct. > > So this doesn't fix an actual bug but rather hardens the code > for future use. Yes, I can see that :) -- Rafał