Hi Sughosh, On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 04:57, Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 17:08, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 06:11, Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The lmb_fix_over_lap_regions() function is called if the added region > > > overlaps with an existing region. The function then fixes the overlap > > > and removes the redundant region. However, it makes an assumption that > > > the overlap would not encompass the existing region, and in such a > > > scenario, it prints a message and returns without making the > > > fix. Handle the case of an encompassing overlap also in the function. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> > > > Reported-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > > > Note: To be applied after an A-b/R-b/T-b from the original author > > > of the lmb_fix_over_lap_regions() function on this > > > > > > lib/lmb.c | 8 +++----- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Would it be possible to go back through your dozen-or-so lmb patches > > and add some tests? > > I am adding tests in the first patch of this series [1], where I am > fixing the lmb_reserve() function. In certain scenarios, it allows to > reserve memory regions on top of existing reservations. Please check > that patch and suggest additional test cases you think that might be > missing. Thanks.
OK, good, thanks. I'll leave it to you to figure out what is needed. Ideally you would add a test to cover each problem you fix. > > -sughosh > > [1] - > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/T/#m64b8622d1de3973955a9b0239de1f1304bc6d831 > Regards, Simon
