On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:36:25 +0800 Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the case of reverse allocation, mas->index and mas->last do not point > to the correct allocation range, which will cause users to get incorrect > allocation results, so fix it. If the user does not use it in a specific > way, this bug will not be triggered. Please describe the user-visible effects of the bug. I assume "none", because there are presently no callers which can trigger it? > Also re-checks whether the size is still satisfied after the lower bound > was increased, which is a corner case and is incorrect in previous versions. Again, what are the user-visible effects of the bug?
