On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 22:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:31:32PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > Well, the comment kinda says it already, but I will try to clarify it. > > > > /* > > * We have start:end spanning across an MTRR. > > * We split the region into either > > * - start_state:1 > > * (start:mtrr_end) (mtrr_end:end) > > * - end_state:1 or inclusive:1 > > * (start:mtrr_start) (mtrr_start:end) > > What I mean is this: > > * - start_state:1 > * (start:mtrr_end) (mtrr_end:end) > * - end_state:1 > * (start:mtrr_start) (mtrr_start:end) > * - inclusive:1 > * (start:mtrr_start) (mtrr_start:mtrr_end) (mtrr_end:end) > * > * depending on kind of overlap. > * > * Return the type of the first region and a pointer to the start > * of next region so that caller will be advised to lookup again > * after having adjusted start and end. > * > * Note: This way we handle multiple overlaps as well. > */ > > We add comments so that people can read them and can quickly understand > what the function does. Not to make them parse it and wonder why > inclusive:1 is listed together with end_state:1 which returns two > intervals. > > Note that I changed the text to talk about the *next* region and not > about the *second* region, to make it even more clear.
Thanks for the suggestion. I see your point. I will update it accordingly. -Toshi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
