[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ff01e0a6-eed0-9a9a-8161-ac35cd4f948a@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 09:29:23 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Yaohui Wang <yaohuiwang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
luoben@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kernel/resource: fix boundary judgment issues in
find_next_iomem_res() and __walk_iomem_res_desc()
On 6/21/21 5:34 AM, Yaohui Wang wrote:
> Memory resources are described with the start address and the inclusive
> end address, which means for a resource with 1 byte length the start
> address is the same as the end address.
Is it just me or does this little "feature" of the resource code
continue to bite us over and over?
It might be some time for some unit tests for kernel/resource.c.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists