As Linus noted, the test for 0 is needless, groups type can follow the
usual kernel style and 8*sizeof(unsigned long) is BITS_PER_LONG:

> The code [..] isn't technically incorrect...
> But it is stupid.
> Why stupid? Because the test for 0 is pointless.
>
> Just doing
>        if (nlk->ngroups < 8*sizeof(groups))
>                groups &= (1UL << nlk->ngroups) - 1;
>
> would have been fine and more understandable, since the "mask by shift
> count" already does the right thing for a ngroups value of 0. Now that
> test for zero makes me go "what's special about zero?". It turns out
> that the answer to that is "nothing".
[..]
> The type of "groups" is kind of silly too.
>
> Yeah, "long unsigned int" isn't _technically_ wrong. But we normally
> call that type "unsigned long".

Cleanup my piece of pointlessness.

Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Fairly-blamed-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>