On 29.07.19 09:49, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 28.07.19 15:13, Wei Yang wrote: >> The memory-device list built by memory_device_build_list is ordered by >> its address, this means if the tmp range exceed the hinted range, all >> the following range will not overlap with it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c >> index 413b514586..aea47ab3e8 100644 >> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c >> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c >> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState >> *ms, >> range_make_empty(&new); >> break; >> } >> - } else if (!hint) { >> + } else if (!hint || range_lob(&tmp) > range_upb(&new)) { >> break; >> } >> } >> > > Lower bound is inclusive, upper bound is exclusive. Shouldn't this be > > range_lob(&tmp) >= range_upb(&new)
Confused by the description of range_set_bounds1(). Both bounds are inclusive and this is correct. > > Also, I wonder if patch #2 is now really needed? > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb