[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC XEN PATCH v4 01/41] x86_64/mm: fix the PDX group check in mem_hotadd_check()
>>> On 07.12.17 at 11:09, <haozhong.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c > @@ -1295,12 +1295,8 @@ static int mem_hotadd_check(unsigned long spfn, > unsigned long epfn) > return 0; > > /* Make sure the new range is not present now */ > - sidx = ((pfn_to_pdx(spfn) + PDX_GROUP_COUNT - 1) & ~(PDX_GROUP_COUNT - > 1)) > - / PDX_GROUP_COUNT; > + sidx = (pfn_to_pdx(spfn) & ~(PDX_GROUP_COUNT - 1)) / PDX_GROUP_COUNT; I agree that rounding up here is bogus. > eidx = (pfn_to_pdx(epfn - 1) & ~(PDX_GROUP_COUNT - 1)) / PDX_GROUP_COUNT; > - if (sidx >= eidx) > - return 0; > - > s = find_next_zero_bit(pdx_group_valid, eidx, sidx); But isn't this one wrong too, needing eidx + 1 as argument instead? Also for the following find_next_bit() then? Also please don't drop the blank line there. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |