>>> On 12.02.18 at 02:44, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> @@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ int valid_numa_range(u64 start, u64 end, nodeid_t node)
> for (i = 0; i < num_node_memblks; i++) {
> struct node *nd = &node_memblk_range[i];
>
> - if (n
On 12/02/18 01:44, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
> ... and fix the coding style on fly.
>
> valid_numa_range(..., epfn << PAGE_SHIFT, ...) and its only caller
> memory_add(..., epfn, pxm) interpret epfn inconsistently. The former
> interprets epfn as the last pfn, while the latter interprets it as the
> la
... and fix the coding style on fly.
valid_numa_range(..., epfn << PAGE_SHIFT, ...) and its only caller
memory_add(..., epfn, pxm) interpret epfn inconsistently. The former
interprets epfn as the last pfn, while the latter interprets it as the
last pfn plus one. Fix this inconsistency in valid_num
