From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51157) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAXAD-0007mX-SU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:21:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAXA8-0006Bl-Rb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:21:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50802) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAXA8-0006BA-Ky for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:21:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:21:32 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20181011092132.GD2483@work-vm> References: <20181009205652.10605-1-david@redhat.com> <20181009205652.10605-5-david@redhat.com> <20181011090821.GC2483@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 4/7] range: add some more functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Igor Mammedov , Markus Armbruster , Michael Roth , David Gibson , Eduardo Habkost * David Hildenbrand (david@redhat.com) wrote: > On 11/10/2018 11:08, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * David Hildenbrand (david@redhat.com) wrote: > >> Add some more functions that will be used in memory-device context. > >> > >> range_init(): Init using lower bound and size > >> range_valid(): Check if there would be an overflow when initializin > >> range_size(): Extract the size of a range > >> range_overlaps_range(): Check for overlaps of two ranges > >> range_contains_range(): Check if one range is contained in the other > >> range_starts_before_range(): Check if one range starts before another > >> range_ends_after_range(): Check if one range ends after another > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand > >> --- > >> include/qemu/range.h | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/qemu/range.h b/include/qemu/range.h > >> index 7e75f4e655..18e8acf22f 100644 > >> --- a/include/qemu/range.h > >> +++ b/include/qemu/range.h > >> @@ -112,6 +112,86 @@ static inline uint64_t range_upb(Range *range) > >> return range->upb; > >> } > >> > >> +/* > >> + * Initialize @range to span the interval [@lob,@lob + @size - 1]. > >> + * @size may be 0. > >> + */ > >> +static inline void range_init(Range *range, uint64_t lob, uint64_t size) > >> +{ > >> + range->lob = lob; > >> + range->upb = lob + size - 1; > >> + range_invariant(range); > >> +} > >> + > >> +/* > >> + * Check if the interval [@lob,@lob + @size - 1] would be valid or not > >> + * (result in an overflow). > >> + */ > >> +static inline bool range_valid(uint64_t lob, uint64_t size) > >> +{ > >> + return lob + size >= lob; > >> +} > > > > That name confused me, I'd expected that to have taken a range and check > > it for something (like a non-asserting version of the invariant). > > Then we have to remove all the variant asserts from the initializer > functions (well, because then it is no longer an invariant then). Other > ideas? My worry here is just the name 'range_valid'. Dave > -- > > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK