Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com> writes:
> While testing this patch, I noticed what you pointed out in my
> patch. Right, the part comparing "si->spec_addr" with "p" is
wrong.
>
> redzone.patch is version of fixed my bug (removed trailing whitespace too).
 Right, but I based my last patch on your first patch, which modified
 the "vaddr" variable before making the "is_free" check.  Either way
works.  
My first patch was having the bug at,
		if (si->flags & ADDRESS_SPECIFIED) {
			if ((si->spec_addr < p) ||
			    (si->spec_addr >= (p + si->size))) {
				if (!(si->flags & VERBOSE))
					continue;
			} 
		}
part. "p" must be including the left RED_ZONE too when comparing with
si->spec_addr. (in my first patch, "p" was not including the left
RED_ZONE.)
> And while testing, I confused whether "redzone on" is
meaning exclude or
> not (because "redzone on" looks like "show redzone")? :)
> So redzone-exclude.patch renamed "redzone" to "exclude_redzone". 
This
> patch can be rejected freely if you don't want.
 OK, but I'll just change the on/off logic and the help page description
 such that:
    redzone on:  object addresses will point to the object base, which is
                 the redzone region if enabled.  (the default)
   redzone off:  object addresses will point to the address returned to
                 the allocator. 
Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi(a)mail.parknet.co.jp>