On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:20:28 AM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:

Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :

quoted

[...]
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.

[...]
You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
why is it better than the existing code?

	Arnd

Hi,

sorry if my explanation was unclear.

What I mean is that if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 4" (i.e. 32 bits systems 
?) then:

	port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use));
turns into:
  	port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, 4);

find_first_zero_bit "Returns the bit number of the first set bit.  If no bits are set, returns @size."
So, in this case, it can return 1, 2, 3 or 4, if one of the 4 first bits is 0.
And will also return 4, if none of the 4 first bits is 0.

Ah, got it.

Finally, what I meant by "Other options are possible:" is:
   - 'vt8500_ports_in_use' being a 'unsigned long', use ffz to reduce code verbosity
	port = ffz(&vt8500_ports_in_use);
     would also work, because it is equivalent to:
	port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, BITS_PER_LONG);

   - VT8500_MAX_PORTS, in order to be consistent with the test below
	port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
     would also work and is maybe more logical in regard to the test "if (port >= VT8500_MAX_PORTS)"



Now if "sizeof(unsigned long) = 8" (i.e. 64 bits systems ?), the actual code would work.
But using "sizeof(long)" to mean "more than VT8500_MAX_PORTS" is odd.
In other words, expressing a number of bits using something that gives a size in bytes is, IMHO, spurious.
  
All this is pure speculation.

Hoping that it is clearer now ( and that my analysis is right :) )

I misread the code in the same way the original author wrote it wrong,
I guess it was meant to say

	port = find_first_zero_bit(&vt8500_ports_in_use, sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use) * 8);

to convert number of bytes into number of bits. Your patch is absolutely
correct, but being more specific about the kind of mistake that was made
is a good idea.

Regarding which of the four alternatives to use, I'd probably use
your third one, checking against VT8500_MAX_PORTS. To make this code
absolutely foolproof, we can add this hunk too then:

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
index 23cfc5e16b45..a68be66d2770 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/vt8500_serial.c

@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ struct vt8500_port {
  * have been allocated as we can't use pdev->id in
  * devicetree
  */
-static unsigned long vt8500_ports_in_use;
+static DECLARE_BITMAP(vt8500_ports_in_use, VT8500_MAX_PORTS);
 
 static inline void vt8500_write(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int val,
 			     unsigned int off)

	Arnd