Re: [Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs()

> This seems to assume that ffs is 1-relative in the bit numbers. My testing 
> shows it is 0-relative, and the manual bears me out. 

Linux follows the libc convention of returning a 1-relative bit
offset, or 0 for 'no bits set'.

Maybe your ffs() routine is different?

 -- Keir


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - 
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, 
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs(), ron minnich Re: [Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs(), Keir Fraser <= Re: [Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs(), ron minnich

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-Unstable : strange power cycling problem, sh1978a@xxxxxxxxx

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-Unstable : no eth0 when boot up, Yan Li

Previous by Thread:

[Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs(), ron minnich

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] question on xenolinux use of ffs(), ron minnich

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]