[v2,1/2] ras: fix an off-by-one error in __find_elem()

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:25:43AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> If you want to go that far, you can choose to use lib/bsearch.c too in
> case you want to reinvent the wheel.

Well, that doesn't give me the @to functionality which points to the
slot where the new element should be inserted, when the search was
unsuccessful.

> What's your point here?

My point is to fix it properly. Obviously.

> You know my fix is targeted for -stable,

Well, first you sent me this:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416012001.5338-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com

then this:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190416213351.28999-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com

Tony liked this second version more and if you look at the final result of mine:

	int min = 0, max = ca->n - 1;

	...

                if (this_pfn < pfn)
                        min = i + 1;
                else if (this_pfn > pfn)
                        max = i - 1;
                else if (this_pfn == pfn) {
                        if (to)
                                *to = i;
                        return i;
                }

it has basically *both*: the correct [min:max] range *and* the return of
ithe ndex when found. But the algorithm this time is the correct one.

> I doubt your 83-line change could fit for -stable.

My 83-line change has debug output only for experimentation. It will,
*of* *course* be removed before committing it upstream. That's why I
called it "a conglomerate patch" and I said "It has some debug output
for easier debugging, that will be removed in the final version, of
course." I guess you didn't read that either.

And the sanity_check() piece will be a separate patch, of course.

In the end the diffstat will be 30-40 lines max.

> Feel free to drop my patch to favor yours. I am really tired.

Suit yourself. Thanks for the reporting.

> Good luck with that!

Ditto.