On 18.08.2022 16:58, Rahul Singh wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2022, at 4:18 pm, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 17.08.2022 16:45, Rahul Singh wrote:
>>> @@ -363,6 +373,42 @@ int __init pci_host_bridge_mappings(struct domain *d)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int is_bar_valid(const struct dt_device_node *dev,
>>> + u64 addr, u64 len, void *data)
>>
>> s/u64/uint64_t/g please.
>
> Ack.
>>
>>> +{
>>> + struct pdev_bar *bar_data = data;
const?
>>> + unsigned long s = mfn_x(bar_data->start);
>>> + unsigned long e = mfn_x(bar_data->end);
>>> +
>>> + if ( (s < e) && (s >= PFN_UP(addr)) && (e <= PFN_UP(addr + len - 1)) )
>>
>> Doesn't this need to be s >= PFN_DOWN(addr)? Or else why is e checked
>> against PFN_UP()?
>
> Ack. I will modify as if ( (s < e) && (s >= PFN_DOWN(addr)) && (e <=
> PFN_UP(addr + len - 1)) )
Hmm, doesn't it further need to be s <= e, seeing that the range passed
to pci_check_bar() is an inclusive one?
Jan
