[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI: correct off-by-1 in SGI MMCFG check
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:16:24 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=bAPNmYDbUikkdB1HPtR4tT6fJefwLIm8/v7oqFdwqCo=; b=QOk/KoE7y36VYOLgwtGWL3TPaUeQix7IhYeC1q2I2AtBTIgKeiLybrTieBudC333DvaqFXw30ac6ggW3ripF2mhmIfWcIA9KAQt8G+G7d3sfJDyo2pHGGCNE1Iqo0BF89CkxlAQGylKElM/+3kFf7vpIfy4pG0m0yvERLJe5MRdgrQZ/p6P2S4zerutAhfhAwzS0tJ+ZU1NV+H1LUD3vaMNzep0Tv5zRLYSkfu2K/ynNmDcKMD4/uGaCsqrhJdmsRCkUpAxUUZgJfFIqASloSmKW40CXZhcIW+AHChNhiX1tHRj2C1ncjl8FK3A7q0SNLgmZ25rb9hNks15zwsbAdQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=MPprn5MzpuBvE00G+VXisfHhKGXpTJwMgAqkMGWfbTZkwwmfQtYTe2+7JLBECSziAfPe1tTZYjK6ziWMHZcKp1OSSYdZlZiz6rjT0UGM1wE4s7ym2/ZOEk3IjkR+u2AGA0ntDLoE178HFDN1zDMoyzTSyoTdWMLrcQh4crGj72pWyFriZFBdd4hZCu28lq+ZNrkV/DnWA6C1Sv1b+GNkgBhIdrW7nR6u+I6BV/oQtnnCu1euNTC8FYZkr3NX0n+IiO0n7V0RfZIuYMPLRhX2nlODOWmTFQVwtbKUTAo2QtSYzEaYobOSBadZM/7uJWDClAabD4mxtjNMbuH9U8gArQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Simone Ballarin <simone.ballarin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Gianluca Luparini <gianluca.luparini@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:17:06 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:QAdJLq8wKc2OloHJiugGDrUDcn+TJUtcMsCJ2f8bNWPcYEJGY0x3n GdJDTvTa/rYMWugfN0jOozl8xwAucKDydVnS1dkqiw8E34SpcT7XtnIdU2Y0wF+jCHgZBk+s 5hBMImowOQcFCK0SsKFa+C5xZVE/fjUAOG6UKicYXoZqTZMEE8JkQhkl/MynrlmiN24BxLlk d7pqojUNUTNNwRcawr40Ird7ks21BjOkGlA5AdmOqkU5Aa2e0Q9V/rzG4ngdxMUfaEMdgKKb 76r5K20+Grf4yAsBruN+losWhRXKlJ6FVHmZkt+A8BOsDAbzsAB+v9T2M4nQVVWk120c+VZk 72hg3ASpTABZcUgkMxFO/VR/roX0aduoNcrKlDn2SCfItGvn9IBDJyCAWlvVbD09NqbDkl1s tFbdjAtcCutqP2kmrakVs1znIcseZyD0IM34hmMzBn/JNN/GdXvZvuP4tVVmjAtmspJAPDSI dIDbiZiZwjBZBsJPUoLDJU5n6GjgXyXnz9w8QrJ4/ZopTWDilUpj9ABM/KMEjCObd9SkUuC4 HrP4kzyAw0ANczZwj2Amp6prraWwHygBNxKTdVU8NZPsn+p1nUOBSEVRFm1jd6Qqnblevhmf hl8Fi0G6PJaGFaQZtv3UgC8oXWElgUBQNcWGOo/gCmdx6yR7wuHC2wsSj9adMdgpMIwXSYt1 FKCg5XuHzMHmKKRYWKQ8PGTtzzaETMUKGgEaGkORA8B6sPipqk5kx3UQ9BsVqWyi7XdFjD5x TSXpyF4g6gLhNQK0aST903ImD+qqd7CSQtdzh7MQmuv4wd9ZYikT4+l817W6bBHNonxc7Wal H0Nmszb4OVQC5iIzXSJWL9URO7v4OuZOjrBh1IpB4Mm6zmm53+ke8ZX/S16I0BqdM0DfFcFf XPuhO+Y37cLVFPCUEO9S9vZ5xgCpUQ4KenYaw==
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:/3BqUaORhm7IoMBcTs+jsMiBIKoaSvp037BL7SxMoHluGfBw+P rAoB1273HJYVQqOE3I6OrgBEDoexq1n/NICOIqTNSftWfdyQ6VBbAnwYz+wyDxXw3Sn9QtsZ uIqpIOauHNMQ==
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:43:28AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> As supported by the printk() (deliberately made visible in context by
> also correcting a mis-indented return statement), "above 4GiB" is meant
> here. Avoid comparison with a constant to "escape" Misra rule 7.2
> complaints. (Note however that even up-to-date Linux, which is where we
> "inherited" this code from, still uses the very same off-by-1 check.)
>
> Fixes: 94ea0622c5b8 ("x86-64/mmcfg: relax base address restriction")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Albeit I wonder how relevant those checks are anymore, TBH I would be
quite tempted to just drop all this.
Thanks, Roger.
|
