On 14.06.2024 18:12, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/e820.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/e820.c
> @@ -593,79 +593,79 @@ int __init e820_add_range(uint64_t s, uint64_t e,
> uint32_t type)
> }
>
> int __init e820_change_range_type(
> - struct e820map *e820, uint64_t s, uint64_t e,
> + struct e820map *map, uint64_t s, uint64_t e,
> uint32_t orig_type, uint32_t new_type)
> {
> uint64_t rs = 0, re = 0;
> unsigned int i;
>
> - for ( i = 0; i < e820->nr_map; i++ )
> + for ( i = 0; i < map->nr_map; i++ )
> {
> /* Have we found the e820 region that includes the specified range?
> */
> - rs = e820->map[i].addr;
> - re = rs + e820->map[i].size;
> + rs = map->map[i].addr;
I'm not overly happy with the many instances of map->map that we're now
gaining, but perhaps that's about as good as it can get. Hence
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
As mentioned for patch 1, please remember though to actually describe
what the conflict is in patches like this one. In this case, unless there
ends up being a need to submit another version, I'll try to remember to
add half a sentence while committing.
Jan
