[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809070943490.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:49:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Yang, Bin" <bin.yang@...el.com>
cc: "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] x86/mm: optimize static_protection() by using
overlap()
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.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists