In message <20080226022933.GA12270 at verge.net.au> you wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:50:34PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > Check the next region we are including is type RANGE_RAM as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey at neuling.org> > > --- > > I've not actually seen this cause a problem, but it looks wrong. We > > should probably merge regions properly and solve this problem for real. > > Hi Michael, > > appologies for this blast-from-the-past. This mail somehow > ended up filed in the wrong place and I chanced upon it just now. > > This fix does seem correct to me, though I haven't seen it cause > any problems either. I'm happy to merge it (better late than never, > right?) if you are still happy with it. Sweet thanks, I'd well and truly forgotten about it. I think it was just a random code cleanup, so if it still applies it should be fine to merge. Mikey > > > > > kexec/kexec.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Index: kexec-tools-testing/kexec/kexec.c > > =================================================================== > > --- kexec-tools-testing.orig/kexec/kexec.c > > +++ kexec-tools-testing/kexec/kexec.c > > @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ int valid_memory_range(struct kexec_info > > mstart = info->memory_range[i].start; > > mend = info->memory_range[i].end; > > if (i < info->memory_ranges - 1 > > - && mend == info->memory_range[i+1].start) > > + && mend == info->memory_range[i+1].start > > + && info->memory_range[i+1].type == RANGE_RAM) > > mend = info->memory_range[i+1].end; > > > > /* Check to see if we are fully contained */ > > -- > Horms >
