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

[Igor Mammedov]

On 08/03/2011 08:23 AM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 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 '<') ?

It is correct. Checkout https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/2/82

--
Thanks,
 Igor
--
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/