s390/bitops: fix comment

Fix some numbers in the comments describing the layout of the bit maps.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>

diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
index 6e6ad06808293b7e88949351f647e516af8f16b2..ec5ef891db6bb8f159bc25a8c98679ea27fb4cb8 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
  *
  * The bitop functions are defined to work on unsigned longs, so for an
  * s390x system the bits end up numbered:
- *   |63..............0|127............64|191...........128|255...........196|
+ *   |63..............0|127............64|191...........128|255...........192|
  * and on s390:
- *   |31.....0|63....31|95....64|127...96|159..128|191..160|223..192|255..224|
+ *   |31.....0|63....32|95....64|127...96|159..128|191..160|223..192|255..224|
  *
  * There are a few little-endian macros used mostly for filesystem
  * bitmaps, these work on similar bit arrays layouts, but
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
  * on an s390x system the bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
  * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|31....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
+ *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  *
  * The main difference is that bit 0-63 (64b) or 0-31 (32b) in the bit
  * number field needs to be reversed compared to the LSB0 encoded bit
@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static inline int test_bit(unsigned long nr, const volatile unsigned long *ptr)
  * On an s390x system the bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
  * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|31....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
+ *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  */
 unsigned long find_first_bit_inv(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size);
 unsigned long find_next_bit_inv(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,

diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/find.c b/arch/s390/lib/find.c
index 620d34d6487e5217ce485ab7a6a00e8a19a9171c..922003c1b90d388c96b26c33a19947dc1c8d95d0 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/s390/lib/find.c
+++ b/arch/s390/lib/find.c
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
  * On s390x the bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
  * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|31....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
+ *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  *
  * The reason for this bit numbering is the fact that the hardware sets bits
  * in a bitmap starting at bit 0 (MSB) and we don't want to scan the bitmap