On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:49:37 +0200
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?
Indeed, it looks like 3/3 will break early in both hinted and
non-hinted cases so 2/3 looks not necessary (in case 2/3 is dropped
this commit message needs to be amended).
