Hi,
On Monday 30 January 2006 09:44, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, are you saying....
>
> struct ata_classes {
> unsigned int classes[2];
> |;
>
> is safer than
>
> unsigned int *class;
>
> ?
No, but with a little bit of additional code it CAN be safer.
Or maybe, we can store the classification in a different way.
What about putting the information directly into "ap->device[INDEX].class"
in the sole caller (ata_drive_probe_reset) so far?
> > So please let the core layer pass a bounded array here or provide
> > a function from core layer to set that and check the index.
> >
>
> Can you show me what you have in mind as code?
/* Define this to 15, if you need to */
#define ATA_MAX_CLASSES 2
struct ata_set {
unsigned int class[ATA_MAX_CLASSES];
};
void set_ata_class(struct ata_set *cls, unsigned int idx, unsigned int what)
{
BUG_ON(idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(cls->class);
cls->class[idx] = what;
}
set_ata_class(&myclass, 0, what);
You can enforce that even better by making "what"
a typedef like we do it with pte/pmd/pud/pgd in the VM.
But I prefer not passing this class stuff around, which would even safe
arguments and thus reduce code size.
Maybe we should even have a classify ata port operation instead?
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
