Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:20:22 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] drivers/acpi: Introduce Platform Firmware Runtime Update device driver |
| |
On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:14:56PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 11:43:50PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
...
> > > +enum cap_index { > > > + CAP_STATUS_IDX = 0, > > > + CAP_UPDATE_IDX = 1, > > > + CAP_CODE_TYPE_IDX = 2, > > > + CAP_FW_VER_IDX = 3, > > > + CAP_CODE_RT_VER_IDX = 4, > > > + CAP_DRV_TYPE_IDX = 5, > > > + CAP_DRV_RT_VER_IDX = 6, > > > + CAP_DRV_SVN_IDX = 7, > > > + CAP_PLAT_ID_IDX = 8, > > > + CAP_OEM_ID_IDX = 9, > > > + CAP_OEM_INFO_IDX = 10, > > > > > + CAP_NR_IDX = 11 > > > > Assignment here doesn't make any sense (it just adds unneeded churn and > > burden). Same to the rest of similar cases below. > > > Greg mentioned that, we might need to "explicit about the numbers here, because it > is uncerntain this is guaranteed by all C compilers or not." > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YXj+QaMcCeV71XbI@kroah.com/ > My understanding is that, this applys to both uapi headers and the kernel internal > headers.
I was talking only about the last item. This is guaranteed to be LAST+1 by the C standard and any deviation from that is a compiler bug that must be fixed.
The first elements may be explicitly defined so we will be sure they are always stay. Greg is right about it.
> > > +};
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |