On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:24:14AM -0700, Jeff Johnson wrote: > 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. No. Please take with ath.
