From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47499)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1abaIn-0005ah-KI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:56:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1abaIi-0001tC-LE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:56:53 -0500
Received: from mail-qg0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::244]:36712)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1abaIi-0001t7-Dv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:56:48 -0500
Received: by mail-qg0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 14so2184987qgg.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
References: <1456156787-17509-1-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
	<1456156787-17509-6-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
	<56D0B4CE.3060204@twiddle.net> <87a8mflkt3.fsf@linaro.org>
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Message-ID: <56D8A50C.1070604@twiddle.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:56:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87a8mflkt3.fsf@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 5/9] qemu-log: new option -dfilter to
	limit output
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: =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, crosthwaitepeter@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aurelien@aurel32.net, dgilbert@redhat.com

On 03/03/2016 06:04 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> writes:
>
>> On 02/22/2016 07:59 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> +    qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("0x1000+0x100");
>>> +
>>> +    g_assert_false(qemu_log_in_addr_range(0xfff));
>>> +    g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(0x1000));
>>> +    g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(0x1100));
>>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about wrt off-by-one error in my first
>> review -- 0x100 bytes, including 0x1000, finishes at 0x10ff.
>>
>> This third test should fail.
>
> OK so should 0x100+0x0 fail as it makes no sense, 0 bytes from 0x100 start?

Yes, I would think so.


r~