Am 30.08.18 um 10:53 schrieb Dr. David Alan Gilbert:
> * David Hildenbrand (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> The "at" should actually be a "before".
>> if (new_addr < address_space_start)
>> -> "can't add memory ... before... $address_space_start"
>>
>> So it looks similar to the other check
>> } else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end)
>> -> "can't add memory ... beyond..."
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> index 6de4f70bb4..efacbc2a7d 100644
>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
>> const uint64_t *hint,
>> new_addr = *hint;
>> if (new_addr < address_space_start) {
>> error_setg(errp, "can't add memory [0x%" PRIx64 ":0x%" PRIx64
>> - "] at 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size,
>> address_space_start);
>> + "] before 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size,
>> + address_space_start);
>
> OK, so
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
>
>> return 0;
>> } else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end) {
>
> That comparison (that's already there) doesn't look wrap-safe?
>
Indeed, but it is not the only one in this file. I'll add a patch for
these. Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
