Re: [PATCH] libata queue updated

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Monday 30 January 2006 08:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
I object. Using array is intentional. Slave aware controllers (PATA / ata_piix) will use [0..1], most SATA controllers will use only [0], and PM aware ones will use [0..15]. The intention was requiring low level drivers of only what they know and normalize them in the core layer.
eg. Current std SATA reset routines consider the argument as *class (a
single class value) and it's intentional. As long as a lldd is aware of
only one device per port, it's allowed/recommeded to consider the passed
classes argument as a pointer to single class value. The rest is upto
the core libata layer.
But what you pass along is basically an unbounded array, which is
a bug waiting to happen.

Hello, again.

I'm a little bit lost here.

So, are you saying....

struct ata_classes {
	unsigned int classes[2];
|;

is safer than

unsigned int *class;

?

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?

--
tejun
-
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]
  Powered by Linux