[RFC PATCH 2/7] lmb: Simplify lmb_addrs_overlap()

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 14:23, Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Heinrich
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 at 13:31, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am 8. Dezember 2024 11:52:05 MEZ schrieb Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>:
> > >There's no point subtracting -1 from the calculated addresses and then
> > >check for a <= b. Just remove the -1 and check for a < b.
> >
> > I once thought that, too. But it makes a difference for end= U(L)LONG_MAX.
>
> If those addresses overflow then we have to add more checks -- e.g
> if (base2_end < base2)
> {
>      Do something wrong
> }
>
> In which case, I prefer modifying the function and add those checks
>
> Thoughts?
> /Ilias

I'm replying to myself here, but the check above isn't needed it's
already implied by the return checks.
I'll drop this in v2

Cheers
/Ilias
>
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Heinrich
> >
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
> > >---
> > > lib/lmb.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c
> > >index a7ecbb58831f..c7bf5120696f 100644
> > >--- a/lib/lmb.c
> > >+++ b/lib/lmb.c
> > >@@ -36,10 +36,10 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
> > > static long lmb_addrs_overlap(phys_addr_t base1, phys_size_t size1,
> > >                             phys_addr_t base2, phys_size_t size2)
> > > {
> > >-      const phys_addr_t base1_end = base1 + size1 - 1;
> > >-      const phys_addr_t base2_end = base2 + size2 - 1;
> > >+      const phys_addr_t base1_end = base1 + size1;
> > >+      const phys_addr_t base2_end = base2 + size2;
> > >
> > >-      return ((base1 <= base2_end) && (base2 <= base1_end));
> > >+      return ((base1 < base2_end) && (base2 < base1_end));
> > > }
> > >
> > > static long lmb_addrs_adjacent(phys_addr_t base1, phys_size_t size1,
> >