On 09/25/18 at 04:58pm, Baoquan He wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > On 09/24/18 at 05:15pm, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > @@ -359,32 +362,31 @@ static int find_next_iomem_res(struct resource *res, > > unsigned long desc, > > read_unlock(&resource_lock); > > if (!p) > > return -1; > > + > > /* copy data */ > > - if (res->start < p->start) > > - res->start = p->start; > > - if (res->end > p->end) > > - res->end = p->end; > > + res->start = max(start, p->start); > > + res->end = min(end, p->end); > > res->flags = p->flags; > > I think this fix is good. However, is it OK to keep res->flags always, > never touch it in find_next_iomem_res()? We just iterate and update > region, its start and end. So just removing that "res->flags = p->flags;" > line might involve much less code changes.
Rethink about it, I was wrong. Please ignore my comment. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
