Hi Michal,
>>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -440,6 +431,26 @@ int __init process_shm_node(const void *fdt, int
>>>> node, uint32_t address_cells,
>>>> device_tree_get_reg(&cell, address_cells, address_cells, &paddr,
>>>> &gaddr);
>>>> size = dt_next_cell(size_cells, &cell);
>>>>
>>>> + if ( !IS_ALIGNED(paddr, PAGE_SIZE) )
>>>> + {
>>>> + printk("fdt: physical address 0x%"PRIpaddr" is not suitably
>>>> aligned.\n",
>>>> + paddr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( !IS_ALIGNED(gaddr, PAGE_SIZE) )
>>>> + {
>>>> + printk("fdt: guest address 0x%"PRIpaddr" is not suitably
>>>> aligned.\n",
>>>> + gaddr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( !IS_ALIGNED(size, PAGE_SIZE) )
>>> What sense does it make to check for size being aligned before checking for
>>> size being 0? It would pass this check.
>>
>> Yes, but in the end we are doing that to print a different error message, so
>> it would pass
>> for 0 and it’s totally fine, but in the end it will fail afterwards. I don’t
>> see functional disruptions
>> having this one before the other, what is the concern here?
> It does not cause the functional disruption. It is more about code
> readability and writing cleaner code.
> It makes more sense to first check for size being 0 rather than whether it's
> page aligned, since the latter can
> pass if former is true and thus not making much sense.
Ok then I will switch them and check it being different from 0 before the
alignment check.
Cheers,
Luca
