Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen: off by one error in xen/setup.c

[Jesper Juhl]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Igor Mammedov wrote:

> On 08/02/2011 07:07 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:45:23AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > Do not try to initialize pfn beyond of available address space.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov<imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/x86/xen/setup.c |    2 +-
> > >   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c
> > > index 60aeeb5..2221b05 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c
> > > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static void __init xen_add_extra_mem(unsigned long
> > > pages)
> > > 
> > >   	xen_max_p2m_pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start + size);
> > > 
> > > -	for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn<= xen_max_p2m_pfn; pfn++)
> > > +	for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn<  xen_max_p2m_pfn; ++pfn)
> > >   		__set_phys_to_machine(pfn, INVALID_P2M_ENTRY);
> > 
> > Did this actually break anything?
> 
> Not really, but for the sake of correctness and as cleanup it's good idea.
> 

Ok I'm really, really nitpicking here, but if it's supposed to "clean up", 
wouldn't this:

  for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn < xen_max_p2m_pfn; ++pfn)

be preferable (note the spacing around '<') ?

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/