On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:32:03AM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>> Le 25/02/2018 à 18:22, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
>> >-#define pfn_valid(pfn) ((pfn) >= ARCH_PFN_OFFSET && (pfn) <
>> >+#define pfn_valid(pfn) \
>> >+ (((pfn) - ARCH_PFN_OFFSET) < (max_mapnr - ARCH_PFN_OFFSET))
>> What will happen when ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is not nul and pfn is lower than
>> ARCH_PFN_OFFSET ?
> It will work fine.
> Say you are asking for a <= x < b so (in actual integers, no overflow)
> that is 0 <= x-a < b-a and you also assume x-a overflows, so that we
> are actually comparing x-a+M < b-a with M = 2**32 or such (the maximum
> value in the unsigned integer type plus one). This comparison is
> obviously always false.
> (It also works if b < a btw).
Thanks Segher !
Christophe does that clarify things or do you want me to update the
commit message ?