Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:23:05 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen: off by one error in xen/setup.c |
| |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 07:07 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:45:23AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > Do not try to initialize pfn beyond of available address space. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov<imammedo@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/xen/setup.c | 2 +- > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c > > > index 60aeeb5..2221b05 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c > > > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static void __init xen_add_extra_mem(unsigned long > > > pages) > > > > > > xen_max_p2m_pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start + size); > > > > > > - for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn<= xen_max_p2m_pfn; pfn++) > > > + for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn< xen_max_p2m_pfn; ++pfn) > > > __set_phys_to_machine(pfn, INVALID_P2M_ENTRY); > > > > Did this actually break anything? > > Not really, but for the sake of correctness and as cleanup it's good idea. >
Ok I'm really, really nitpicking here, but if it's supposed to "clean up", wouldn't this:
for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(extra_start); pfn < xen_max_p2m_pfn; ++pfn)
be preferable (note the spacing around '<') ?
-- Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please.
| |