Re: [TRIVIAL] Re: UP went into unexpected trashing

[Dipankar Sarma]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:40:13PM +0100, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On  8 Nov 02 at 19:33, Rusty Trivial Russell wrote:
> 
> So maybe callers should just treat any return value >= size as "not found",
> leaving older smaller code in place.

Or add a check in there. I can't figure out a way to avoid the extra 
conditional branch anyway :)

Thanks
Dipankar

diff -urN linux-2.5.46-base/include/asm-i386/bitops.h linux-2.5.46-misc/include/asm-i386/bitops.h
--- linux-2.5.46-base/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	Sat Sep 28 03:20:22 2002
+++ linux-2.5.46-misc/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	Sat Nov  9 01:08:56 2002
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@
 		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
 		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
 		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr));
-	return res;
+	return (size > res) ? res : size;
 }
 
 /**