Julien Grall writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/13/19 4:14 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> Julien Grall writes:
>>> On 8/13/19 3:23 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>>> Stefano Stabellini writes:
>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>> device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, size_cells, &start,
>>>>> &size);
>>>>> if ( !size )
>>>>> continue;
>>>>> - bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].start = start;
>>>>> - bootinfo.mem.bank[bootinfo.mem.nr_banks].size = size;
>>>>> - bootinfo.mem.nr_banks++;
>>>>> + mem->bank[mem->nr_banks].start = start;
>>>>> + mem->bank[mem->nr_banks].size = size;
>>>>> + mem->nr_banks++;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - if ( bootinfo.mem.nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
>>>>> + if ( mem->nr_banks == NR_MEM_BANKS )
>>>> Looks like you have the same off-by-one error, as in previous patch.
>>>> I can see that it was there earlier. But it is good time to fix it.
>>>
>>> I don't think there was an off-by-one error before this series. So
>>> what do you mean?
>> I explained this in patch #2. Imagine that NR_MEM_BANKS = 1 and you have
>> one memory node in the dtb. You'll fill the first element of the array
>> and mem->nr_banks will become 1. This is absolutely normal. But check
>> above will fail, which is not right.
>
> Ok. So the off-by-one error has been introduced by this series. So
> this should be fixed in patch #2 not here.
Yes, sorry. I got lost in the code.
--
Volodymyr Babchuk at EPAM
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
