On 4/27/2025 8:25 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:00:33PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> The function calls bitmap_empty() just before find_first_bit(). Both >>> functions are O(N). Because find_first_bit() returns >= nbits in case of >>> empty bitmap, the bitmap_empty() test may be avoided. >>> >> >> I looked up bitmap_empty(): >> <https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/bitmap.h#n423> >> >> apart from the small_const_nbits stuff (which carl9170 likely does not qualify >> for since from what I remember it's a 128bits bitmap) the function just does: >> >> | return find_first_bit(src, nbits) == nbits; >> >> so yes, find_first_bit runs twice with same parameters... Unless the >> compiler is smart >> enough to detect this and (re-)use the intermediate result later. But >> I haven't check >> if this is the case with any current, old or future compilers. Has anyone? >> >> Anyway, Sure. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, Chrustian. So, how is that supposed to be merged? > I can move it with bitmap-for-next, unless there's no better > branch. > > Thanks, > Yury > Yury, did you take this? If not, I'll take it through the ath tree.
