Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're the second one to ask this. I'm pretty sure it's still right > (and it's what the old code used to do).
On reconsideration, I'll withdraw my objection. I think you're right. > Consider the case where limit is 0xC0000000, val is 0xBFFFFFFF and len > is 1. Better still, consider val=0, len=1 and limit=1 as it's much easier to do in one's head. I was thinking about the limit case only (I could see wrap-around is taken care of). It might be better to call your function something like limit_check(). You don't really mean val_outside() you mean range_outside() or something. Also, I agree that having a standard function to detect it is a good thing to do. We have to make this check so often, and occasionally it's got wrong. A further thought for you... might it be worth having a wrapper macro that casts the val argument (and possibly the limit) to unsigned long? Quite often what you want to check are pointers. Anyway: Acked-By: David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
