On 01/07/2016 at 05:20 PM, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:08:21 +0800
> Xunlei Pang <xlpang at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2016 at 10:36 AM, Minfei Huang wrote:
>>> On 01/07/16 at 10:14am, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>> +kexec_mark_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool protect)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct page *page;
>>>>>> + unsigned int nr_pages;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* For physical range: [start, end] */
>>>>>> + if (!start || !end || start > end)
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> Hi, Xunlei.
>>>>>
>>>>> if (start > end)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>> If both start and end are zero, we want to return directly, so the two
>>>> more check doesn't hurt.
>>> How about if the start is equal to 0, and end is larger than 0? It is
>>> better to make code more robust, although it never happen in currect
>>> kexec code.
>> Hmm, this will be better:
>>
>> if (!end || start > end)
>> return 0;
>>
>> it handles the common case not using crash_low_res(start and end are 0).
> Hm, if both start and end are 0, then what about using this condition:
>
> if (start >= end)
> return 0;
>
> I think it's good enough, because if start is equal to end, then
> there's nothing to protect anyway.
In theory, start==end(not 0) still means we have 1B to protect :-)
But in practice there are no such cases, so I think this is ok.
Regards,
Xunlei
>
> Regards,
> Petr Tesarik
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
