On 28.07.19 15:13, Wei Yang wrote:
> The memory-device list built by memory_device_build_list is ordered by
> its address, this means if the tmp range exceed the hinted range, all
> the following range will not overlap with it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> index 413b514586..aea47ab3e8 100644
> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState
> *ms,
> range_make_empty(&new);
> break;
> }
> - } else if (!hint) {
> + } else if (!hint || range_lob(&tmp) > range_upb(&new)) {
> break;
> }
> }
>
Lower bound is inclusive, upper bound is exclusive. Shouldn't this be
range_lob(&tmp) >= range_upb(&new)
Also, I wonder if patch #2 is now really needed?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
