Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:20:16 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, tiwai@suse.de, bp@suse.de,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com, dyoung@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue
Message-ID: <20180925112016.GZ2555@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <153782698067.130337.12079523922130875402.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <153782730364.130337.17794279728329113665.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20180925085846.GY2555@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180925085846.GY2555@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/25/18 at 04:58pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 09/24/18 at 05:15pm, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > @@ -359,32 +362,31 @@ static int find_next_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
> >  	read_unlock(&resource_lock);
> >  	if (!p)
> >  		return -1;
> > +
> >  	/* copy data */
> > -	if (res->start < p->start)
> > -		res->start = p->start;
> > -	if (res->end > p->end)
> > -		res->end = p->end;
> > +	res->start = max(start, p->start);
> > +	res->end = min(end, p->end);
> >  	res->flags = p->flags;
> 
> I think this fix is good. However, is it OK to keep res->flags always,
> never touch it in find_next_iomem_res()? We just iterate and update
> region, its start and end. So just removing that "res->flags = p->flags;"
> line might involve much less code changes.

Rethink about it, I was wrong. Please ignore my comment.