![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-30 08:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||