Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:44:54 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] libata queue updated |
| |
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/
| |