From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43206)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1UcA5X-0002rK-By
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:56:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1UcA5U-0000Ou-Tk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:55:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14254)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1UcA5U-0000Oi-K7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:55:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:55:51 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20130514075551.GD4368@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1368474222.git.mst@redhat.com>
	<87af80d75efe782e9edb47f214e0521f50a9cf56.1368474222.git.mst@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA_CzYATc+yHATUqnKOkBwxKz4wyqi4ic3amTDvwnjA00A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_CzYATc+yHATUqnKOkBwxKz4wyqi4ic3amTDvwnjA00A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 08/13] range: add Range structure
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: seabios@seabios.org, lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:20:08PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 May 2013 21:01, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Sometimes we need to pass ranges around, add a
> > handy structure for this purpose.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  include/qemu/range.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/qemu/range.h b/include/qemu/range.h
> > index 3502372..4bcd346 100644
> > --- a/include/qemu/range.h
> > +++ b/include/qemu/range.h
> > @@ -1,6 +1,28 @@
> >  #ifndef QEMU_RANGE_H
> >  #define QEMU_RANGE_H
> >
> > +#include <inttypes.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Operations on 64 address ranges.
> 
> missing "bit" ?
> 
> > + * Notes:
> > + *   - ranges must not wrap around 0, but can include the last byte ~0x0LL.
> > + *   - this can not represent a full 0 to ~0x0LL range.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/* A structure representing a range of addresses. */
> > +struct Range {
> > +    uint64_t begin; /* First byte of the range, or 0 if empty. */
> > +    uint64_t end;   /* 1 + the last byte. 0 if range empty or ends at ~0x0LL. */
> > +};
> > +typedef struct Range Range;
> > +
> > +/* verify that range is not empty and does not overlap */
> 
> Doesn't overlap what?

I meant wrap around there.

> Why isn't an empty range valid?
> The struct definition above says it's OK.

Yes it's a bad name. Should be range_non_empty or something.

> > +{
> > +    return range->begin + 1 <= range->end;
> > +}
> 
> I note that memory.c defines its own concept of an AddrRange.
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM

Good point, maybe I'll reuse that or just use two 64 bit fields explicitly.

-- 
MST