On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 14:23, Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Heinrich
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 13:31, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
Am 8. Dezember 2024 11:52:05 MEZ schrieb Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org:
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 ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org
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,