From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55177)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1UJ0zX-0006rW-LL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:22:45 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1UJ0zT-00053f-0A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:22:39 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:22:27 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130322122227.GB30604@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1363329121-20625-1-git-send-email-hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1363329121-20625-1-git-send-email-hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] memory: fix a bug of
 detection of memory region collision
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:32:01PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> The collision reports before and after this patch are:
> 
> before:
> 
> warning: subregion collision cfc/4 (pci-conf-data) vs cf8/4 (pci-conf-idx)
> warning: subregion collision 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole) vs 0/8000000 (ram-below-4g)
> warning: subregion collision 100000000/4000000000000000 (pci-hole64) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 4d1/1 (kvm-elcr) vs 4d0/1 (kvm-elcr)
> warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (kvm-ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 80/1 (ioport80) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
> warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 81/3 (dma-page) vs 80/1 (ioport80)
> warning: subregion collision 8/8 (dma-cont) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision d0/10 (dma-cont) vs c0/10 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (kvm-pit)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (kvm-pic)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
> warning: subregion collision 4/2 (acpi-cnt) vs 0/4 (acpi-evt)
> warning: subregion collision 30/8 (apci-smi) vs 20/10 (apci-gpe0)
> warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> 
> after:
> 
> warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (kvm-ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (kvm-pit)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (kvm-pic)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
> warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  memory.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

The int128_le() comparison below suggests that int128_gt() really should
be int128_ge().

Thanks, applied to the trivial patches tree:
https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/trivial-patches

Stefan