[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: actually skip the first MAX_ORDER bits in pfn_pdx_hole_setup
On Mon, 6 May 2019, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 03.05.19 at 22:50, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Fix the issue by passing j+1 and i+1 to find_next_zero_bit and > > find_next_bit. Also add a check for i >= BITS_PER_LONG because > > find_{,next_}zero_bit() on x86 assume their last argument to be less > > than their middle one. > > I had pointed out x86 since I knew it has this assumption. Now > that you mention it here, I would have expected you've checked > that Arm doesn't make similar assumptions. 32-bit Arm looks to > do, though (while 64-bit has a dedicated if() to deal with the > situation). I think that either way we want to say that those functions are not supposed to be called that way. I'll update the commit message. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |