From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix off-by-one in nr_irqs_gsi calculation Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:27:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <501181AA0200007800090B57@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <501181AA0200007800090B57@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 26/07/2012 16:43, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 26.07.12 at 17:31, Keir Fraser wrote: >> On 26/07/2012 16:06, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >> >>> highest_gsi() returns the last valid GSI, not a count. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> >> Why not "nr_irqs_gsi = max(nr_irqs_gsi, highest_gsi()+1)"? > > While I think x = max(y, z) is fine, I generally find x = max(x, y) > pretty useless - what's the point of assigning a value to itself? > This is __init code, so code size considerations probably don't > matter, but I'd still like to not encourage inefficient code like this > to be used elsewhere by giving a bad example... I think the code is clearer with max(). An even stronger argument is that it makes the intent of the patch much more obvious too. I think you should leave the max() construct in place in this patch. -- Keir > Jan > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/io_apic.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/io_apic.c >>> @@ -2531,7 +2531,9 @@ void __init init_ioapic_mappings(void) >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - nr_irqs_gsi = max(nr_irqs_gsi, highest_gsi()); >>> + i = highest_gsi(); >>> + if ( i >= nr_irqs_gsi ) >>> + nr_irqs_gsi = i + 1; >>> >>> if ( max_gsi_irqs == 0 ) >>> max_gsi_irqs = nr_irqs ? nr_irqs / 8 : PAGE_SIZE; >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xen-devel mailing list >>> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > >