On 10/14/2014 09:28 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without
On 10/14/2014 09:28 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM, David Vrabel david.vra...@citrix.com wrote:
On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although
On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
>>> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
>>> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
>>> cause the value to
On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
>> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
>> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
>> cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
> cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
> a check against 0 value and a
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
a check against 0 value and a corresponding
On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
cause the value to be 0,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM, David Vrabel david.vra...@citrix.com wrote:
On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero.
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
a check against 0 value and a corresponding warning.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly
---
In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
a check against 0 value and a corresponding warning.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly
12 matches
Mail list logo
