>>> On 03.12.18 at 18:40, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> +static unsigned long flush_count(unsigned long dfn, unsigned int page_count,
> + unsigned int order)
> +{
> + unsigned long start = dfn / (1u << order);
> + unsigned long end = DIV_ROUND_UP(dfn + page_count, (1u << order));
Luckily this in not in generic code, so the anomaly at the upper address
space end is not going to surface, and in particular not cause ...
> + ASSERT(end > start);
... this to trigger. I therefore nevertheless wonder whether it
would't be better to use
unsigned long start = dfn >> order;
unsigned long end = (dfn + page_count - 1) >> order) + 1;
instead.
> --- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,11 @@ static inline bool_t dfn_eq(dfn_t x, dfn_t y)
> return dfn_x(x) == dfn_x(y);
> }
>
> +static inline bool_t dfn_lt(dfn_t x, dfn_t y)
> +{
> + return dfn_x(x) < dfn_x(y);
> +}
The revision log says this is gone ...
With it really gone, and irrespective of the other comment
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Of course one or both adjustments could be easily done while
committing, provided you agree and provided there's no other
need for a v3.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
