Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190812052359.30071-20-armbru@redhat.com>
Some files claim that the code is licensed under the GPL, but then
suddenly suggest that the user should have a look at the LGPL.
That's of course non-sense, replace it with the correct GPL wording
instead.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1548255083-8190-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Add some more functions that will be used in memory-device context.
range_init(): Init using lower bound and size, check for validity
range_init_nofail(): Init using lower bound and size, validity asserted
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
Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20181214131043.25071-2-david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
If there are no changes, let's use a const pointer.
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20181023152306.3123-4-david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Range represents a range as follows. Member @start is the inclusive
lower bound, member @end is the exclusive upper bound. Zero @end is
special: if @start is also zero, the range is empty, else @end is to
be interpreted as 2^64. No other empty ranges may occur.
The range [0,2^64-1] cannot be represented. If you try to create it
with range_set_bounds1(), you get the empty range instead. If you try
to create it with range_set_bounds() or range_extend(), assertions
fail. Before range_set_bounds() existed, the open-coded creation
usually got you the empty range instead. Open deathtrap.
Moreover, the code dealing with the janus-faced @end is too clever by
half.
Dumb this down to a more pedestrian representation: members @lob and
@upb are inclusive lower and upper bounds. The empty range is encoded
as @lob = 1, @upb = 0.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Users of struct Range mess liberally with its members, which makes
refactoring hard. Create a set of methods, and convert all users to
call them instead of accessing members. The methods have carefully
worded contracts, and use assertions to check them.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Calling our function g_list_insert_sorted_merged is a misnomer,
since we are NOT writing a glib function. Furthermore, we are
making every caller pass the same comparator function of
range_merge(): any caller that would try otherwise would break
in weird ways since our internal call to ranges_can_merge() is
hard-coded to operate only on ranges, rather than paying
attention to the caller's comparator.
Better is to fix things so that callers don't have to care about
our internal comparator, by picking a function name and updating
the parameter type away from a gratuitous use of void*, to make
it obvious that we are operating specifically on a list of ranges
and not a generic list. Plus, refactoring the code here will
make it easier to plug a memory leak in the next patch.
range_compare() is now internal only, and moves to the .c file.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1464712890-14262-3-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
g_list_insert_sorted_merged() is rather large to be an inline
function; move it to its own file. range_merge() and
ranges_can_merge() can likewise move, as they are only used
internally. Also, it becomes obvious that the condition within
range_merge() is already satisfied by its caller, and that the
return value is not used.
The diffstat is misleading, because of the copyright boilerplate.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1464712890-14262-2-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Manually drop redundant includes that scripts/clean-includes misses,
e.g. because they're hidden in generator programs, or they use the
wrong kind of delimiter.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Clean up includes so that osdep.h is included first and headers
which it implies are not included manually.
This commit was created with scripts/clean-includes.
NB: If this commit breaks compilation for your out-of-tree
patchseries or fork, then you need to make sure you add
#include "qemu/osdep.h" to any new .c files that you have.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
MST: split up patch
Sometimes we need to pass ranges around, add a
handy structure for this purpose.
Note: memory.c defines its own concept of AddrRange structure for
working with 128 addresses. It's necessary there for doing range math.
This is not needed for most users: struct Range is
much simpler, and is only used for passing the range around.
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
