On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:30:56AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:49:37 +0200
>David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> 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)
>>
>> Also, I wonder if patch #2 is now really needed?
>Indeed, it looks like 3/3 will break early in both hinted and
>non-hinted cases so 2/3 looks not necessary (in case 2/3 is dropped
>this commit message needs to be amended).
>
ok, let me drop #2
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
