>>> On 23.07.15 at 18:08, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 03:51 PM, Sahita, Ravi wrote:
>>>> +int p2m_destroy_altp2m_by_id(struct domain *d, unsigned int idx) {
>>>> + struct p2m_domain *p2m;
>>>> + int rc = -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( !idx || idx > MAX_ALTP2M )
>>>
>>> >= (and then also elsewhere further down)?
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Just wanted to make sure these are also ok to do post 4.6
>
> Well the off-by-one errors certainly need to be fixed for 4.6.
>
> If this was the only thing holding it up, the committer could fix it up
> on check-in, or we could take a fix-up patch afterwards.
Sure, but on this one in particular I intentionally gave my ack
only for the non-mm parts, hoping you would do another pass
over them (and then hopefully ack them).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
