Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 04/25/2011 07:28 AM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.

Yep, seems reasonable.  Did this cause a problem, or is it just
something you noticed?

    J

> Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@ksplice.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> index 468d591..226bfad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static __init void reloc_symtab(Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr,
>  		    sym->st_shndx == SHN_ABS)
>  			continue;  /* skip */
>  
> -		if (sym->st_shndx > SHN_LORESERVE) {
> +		if (sym->st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE) {
>  			printk(KERN_INFO "VDSO: unexpected st_shndx %x\n",
>  			       sym->st_shndx);
>  			continue;