On 04/02/09 10:25, James Carlson wrote:
> Girish Moodalbail writes:
>> On 04/02/09 09:37, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote:
>>> so a full-fledged solution for extracting "POSSIBLE" for a general property
>>> should be able to handle an enumerated return value, right?
>>
>> Well then I will have a 'void **';
>>
>> -------------
>> typedef struct mac_propval_limit {
>> uint32_t range_min;
>> uint32_t range_max;
>> } mac_propval_limit_t;
>>
>> typedef struct mac_propval_range {
>> uint32_t range_num;
>> void **range_lim;
>> } mac_propval_range_t;
>> ------------
>>
>> for MTU and CPU values you could typecast it to "mac_propval_limit_t".
>
> I happen to like type checking, so I'd suggest using a union of types
> instead of a 'void **'. Perhaps something like:
>
> typedef struct mac_propval_int_range_s {
> uint32_t range_min;
> uint32_t range_max;
> } mac_propval_int_range_t;
>
> typedef enum mac_propval_rtype_e {
> pvlInteger
> } mac_propval_rtype_t;
>
> typedef struct mac_propval_range_s {
> uint_t range_num;
> mac_propval_rtype_t range_type;
> union {
> mac_propval_int_range_t **pvl_ir;
> } u;
> } mac_propval_range_t;
>
> #define range_int u.pvl_ir
I like this, too.
And also as Sowmini suggests, we could use MAC_PROP_RANGE flag (just
like MAC_PROP_DEFAULT), to avoid explosion of properties (read:
MAC_PROP_YYYY & MAC_PROP_YYYY_RANGE).
thanks guys!
~Girish
>
> ... but it's probably not a big issue.
>
