On 2024-08-19 21:19, Yury Norov wrote:[...]
+/**
+ * find_next_notandnot_bit - find the next bit cleared in both *addr1 and *addr2
+ * @addr1: The first address to base the search on
+ * @addr2: The second address to base the search on
+ * @size: The bitmap size in bits
+ * @offset: The bitnumber to start searching at
+ *
+ * Returns the bit number for the next bit cleared in both *addr1 and *addr2.
+ * If no such bits are found, returns @size.
+ */
+static inline
+unsigned long find_next_notandnot_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
+ const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long size,
+ unsigned long offset)
+{
+ if (small_const_nbits(size)) {
+ unsigned long val;
+
+ if (unlikely(offset >= size))
+ return size;
+
+ val = (~*addr1) & (~*addr2) & GENMASK(size - 1, offset);
+ return val ? __ffs(val) : size;
+ }
+
+ return _find_next_notandnot_bit(addr1, addr2, size, offset);
+}
+#endif
+
It's not said explicitly, but some naming conventions exist around bitmap
searching.
If you're looking for a clear (unset) bit in a mask, you'd use a 'zero'
modifier. We have only 2 such functions now: find_{first,next}_zero_bit,
both taking one bitmap. I think it's time to extend this rule for
many bitmaps and write down the naming rules.
With the following, the find_next_notandnot_bit() should be named
like; find_next_zero_and_bit(). It's not perfect, but still sounds
better to me than 'notandnot' thing.