On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:32:01PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > The collision reports before and after this patch are: > > before: > > warning: subregion collision cfc/4 (pci-conf-data) vs cf8/4 (pci-conf-idx) > warning: subregion collision 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole) vs 0/8000000 > (ram-below-4g) > warning: subregion collision 100000000/4000000000000000 (pci-hole64) vs > 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole) > warning: subregion collision 4d1/1 (kvm-elcr) vs 4d0/1 (kvm-elcr) > warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (kvm-ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000 > (pci-hole) > warning: subregion collision 80/1 (ioport80) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic) > warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000 > (pci-hole) > warning: subregion collision 81/3 (dma-page) vs 80/1 (ioport80) > warning: subregion collision 8/8 (dma-cont) vs 0/8 (dma-chan) > warning: subregion collision d0/10 (dma-cont) vs c0/10 (dma-chan) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (kvm-pit) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (kvm-pic) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic) > warning: subregion collision 4/2 (acpi-cnt) vs 0/4 (acpi-evt) > warning: subregion collision 30/8 (apci-smi) vs 20/10 (apci-gpe0) > warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs > 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole) > > after: > > warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (kvm-ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000 > (pci-hole) > warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000 > (pci-hole) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (kvm-pit) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (kvm-pic) > warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic) > warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs > 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole) > > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hu...@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > memory.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
The int128_le() comparison below suggests that int128_gt() really should be int128_ge(). Thanks, applied to the trivial patches tree: https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/trivial-patches Stefan
