x86, mm: Correct the implementation of is_untracked_pat_range()
The semantics the PAT code expect of is_untracked_pat_range() is "is
this range completely contained inside the untracked region." This
means that checkin 8a27138924 was
technically wrong, because the implementation needlessly confusing.
The sane interface is for it to take a semiclosed range like just
about everything else (as evidenced by the sheer number of "- 1"'s
removed by that patch) so change the actual implementation to match.
Reported-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
LKML-Reference: <20091119202341.GA4420@sgi.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static u64 gru_start_paddr, gru_end_paddr;
|
||||
|
||||
static inline bool is_GRU_range(u64 start, u64 end)
|
||||
{
|
||||
return start >= gru_start_paddr && end < gru_end_paddr;
|
||||
return start >= gru_start_paddr && end <= gru_end_paddr;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static bool uv_is_untracked_pat_range(u64 start, u64 end)
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user