Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | Date | Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:56 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:59 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > +/* UBI headers must take 64 bytes. The below is a hacky way to ensure this */ > > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_EC_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); > > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_VID_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); > > please use BUILD_BUG_ON instead.
Will be done, thanks.
> > + > > +static int ubi_attach_mtd_dev(const char *mtd_dev, int vid_hdr_offset, > > + int data_offset); > > +static void ubi_destroy_dev(int ubi_num); > > Can you reorder the code to avoid all these forward declarations please?
Could you please submit a CodingStyle patch that would contain a requirement to use the "higher-level functions at the bottom, lower-layer at top"? Because I just use the opposite.
> > + /* Attach MTD devices */ > > + for (i = 0; i < mtd_devs; i++) { > > + struct mtd_dev_param *p = &mtd_dev_param[i]; > > + > > + cond_resched(); > > + err = -EINVAL; > > This looks very odd.
What exactly?
> > +module_param_call(mtd, ubi_mtd_param_parse, NULL, NULL, 000); > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(mtd, "MTD devices to attach. Parameter format: " > > + "mtd=<name|num>[,<vid_hdr_offs>,<data_offs>]. " > > + "Multiple \"mtd\" parameters may be specified.\n" > > + "MTD devices may be specified by their number or name. " > > + "Optional \"vid_hdr_offs\" and \"data_offs\" parameters " > > + "specify UBI VID header position and data starting " > > + "position to be used by UBI.\n" > > + "Example: mtd=content,1984,2048 mtd=4 - attach MTD device" > > + "with name content using VID header offset 1984 and data " > > + "start 2048, and MTD device number 4 using default " > > + "offsets"); > > This is a very odd paramater interface. We really don't want drivers to use > module_param_call directly. You probably want various module_param_array calls > instead.
Why not? We tried to avoid this but found out that this is the most decent interface. Specific advises are welcome.
Thank you, Artem.
-- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
- 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/
| |