On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 14:23, Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Heinrich > > On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 13:31, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Am 8. Dezember 2024 11:52:05 MEZ schrieb Ilias Apalodimas > > <[email protected]>: > > >There's no point subtracting -1 from the calculated addresses and then > > >check for a <= b. Just remove the -1 and check for a < b. > > > > I once thought that, too. But it makes a difference for end= U(L)LONG_MAX. > > If those addresses overflow then we have to add more checks -- e.g > if (base2_end < base2) > { > Do something wrong > } > > In which case, I prefer modifying the function and add those checks > > Thoughts? > /Ilias
I'm replying to myself here, but the check above isn't needed it's already implied by the return checks. I'll drop this in v2 Cheers /Ilias > > > > > Best regards > > > > Heinrich > > > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> > > >--- > > > lib/lmb.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > >diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c > > >index a7ecbb58831f..c7bf5120696f 100644 > > >--- a/lib/lmb.c > > >+++ b/lib/lmb.c > > >@@ -36,10 +36,10 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > > > static long lmb_addrs_overlap(phys_addr_t base1, phys_size_t size1, > > > phys_addr_t base2, phys_size_t size2) > > > { > > >- const phys_addr_t base1_end = base1 + size1 - 1; > > >- const phys_addr_t base2_end = base2 + size2 - 1; > > >+ const phys_addr_t base1_end = base1 + size1; > > >+ const phys_addr_t base2_end = base2 + size2; > > > > > >- return ((base1 <= base2_end) && (base2 <= base1_end)); > > >+ return ((base1 < base2_end) && (base2 < base1_end)); > > > } > > > > > > static long lmb_addrs_adjacent(phys_addr_t base1, phys_size_t size1, > >
