Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] x86/mm: optimize static_protection() by using overlap()

[Yang, Bin]

On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 10:21 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 09:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 14:22 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I just write a test.c to compare the result between overlap() and
> > > > original within().
> > > 
> > > You are right. Your version of doing the overlap exclusive works. I misread
> > > the conditions. I still prefer doing inclusive checks because they are way
> > > more obvious.
> > 
> > I am sorry for my poor english. What is "inclusive checks"?
> 
> Exlusive:    val >= start && val < end
> 
> Inclusive:   val >= start && val <= end
> 
> So the difference is that you feed exclusive with:
> 
>    end = start + size
> 
> and inclusive with
> 
>   end = start + size - 1
> 

Thanks. I will change it to inclusive check.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
>