Evan, be_activate.c --------------------- 519 - "current" -> "this" to be consistent with 617 and 696
1116, 1131-1142 - Can you make these block function comment lines consistent with other block function comments. Seems random to place these two new functions in be_activate.c, they don't have any particular relation to activate. I can't think of a better place to put them though, maybe be_utils.c instead? be_list.c ------------- 427, 560, 663 - These lines look awkward; they really shouldn't even be executed if we're (!i386) right? Perhaps they should just be combined in with the if() clause at 425,558, 662 respectively. be_utils.c --------------- 955 - nit - Could we instead pass the err back as the return value and pass the default bootfs string via a reference pointer? 1066 - Can we not use "Sparc" here. I think somewhere else you used "this architecture" instead. 1068 - nit - Add an empty line after this line. 1218 - Should "grub" still be here? libbe.h ----------- 102 - This needs to be added to the end of the enum. Recall we have a copy of this in beadm/messages.py thanks, -ethan Evan Layton wrote: > We need to get some code reviews for the SPARC support > for SNAP. > > The changes were mainly in how the SPARC boot menu is > handled compared to how the grub menu is handled. > > The changes cover the following CR's only: > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4297 > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5401 > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5420 > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5604 > > The webrev is available from: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/5420 > > Unit testing for this has been completed however general > testing for this is not yet complete. This testing is in > progress and has shown no new issues thus far. > > Thanks! > -evan > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
