Fixing back invariant on offsets

[drisspg]

Summary

I changed the calculation of offsets to add an extra element for bounding above. This invariant makes sense in the contiguous case but when ntesnor[i] is sliced like in this pr: #83736 this doesn't make semantic sense anymore. SO changing back, Borderline stampy

[facebook-github-bot]

🔗 Helpful links

• 🧪  See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/84433
• ✖️ Python docs build was skipped
• ✖️ C++ docs build was skipped
• ❓Need help or want to give feedback on the CI? Visit our office hours
• ↩️  [fb-only] Re-run with SSH instructions

❌ 1 New Failures

As of commit 96f0fa1 (more details on the Dr. CI page):

Expand to see more

---

• 1/1 failures introduced in this PR

---

🕵️‍♀️ 1 failure not recognized by patterns:

The following CI failures may be due to changes from the PR

Job	Step
build	Unknown

---

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).

Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group.

Click here to manually regenerate this comment.

[drisspg]

@pytorchbot merge -l

[pytorchmergebot]

@pytorchbot successfully started a merge job. Check the current status here and land check progress here.
The merge job was triggered with the land checks (-l) flag. If you did not specify this flag yourself, you are likely enrolled in the land checks rollout. This means that your change will be merged once all checks on your PR and the land checks have passed (ETA 4 Hours). If you need to coordinate lands between different changes and cannot risk a land race, please add the ciflow/trunk label to your PR and wait for signal to complete, and then land your changes in proper order. Having trunk, pull, and Lint pre-run on a PR will bypass land checks and the ETA should be immediate. If this is not the intended behavior, feel free to use some of the other merge options in the wiki.
Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team with feedback or questions!

[github-actions]

Hey @drisspg.
You've committed this PR, but it does not have both a 'release notes: ...' and 'topics: ...' label. Please add one of each to the PR. The 'release notes: ...' label should represent the part of PyTorch that this PR changes (fx, autograd, distributed, etc) and the 'topics: ...' label should represent the kind of PR it is (not user facing, new feature, bug fix, perf improvement, etc). The list of valid labels can be found here for the 'release notes: ...' and here for the 'topics: ...'.
For changes that are 'topic: not user facing' there is no need for a release notes label.