Re [PATCH v2] lib: optimize cpumask_next_and()

[Clement Courbet]

Thanks for the comments Yury.

> But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with
> _find_next_bit_le()

Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a
find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more
like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge
it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)