On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:39:24 +0200, Per Forlin <per.for...@linaro.org>
wrote:
2011/8/18 Michal Nazarewicz <min...@mina86.com>:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:28:46 +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_mass_storage.c
b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_mass_storage.c
index 5b93395..3e546d9 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_mass_storage.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_mass_storage.c
@@ -363,7 +363,6 @@ struct fsg_common {
struct fsg_buffhd *next_buffhd_to_fill;
struct fsg_buffhd *next_buffhd_to_drain;
- struct fsg_buffhd buffhds[FSG_NUM_BUFFERS];
int cmnd_size;
u8 cmnd[MAX_COMMAND_SIZE];
@@ -407,6 +406,8 @@ struct fsg_common {
char inquiry_string[8 + 16 + 4 + 1];
struct kref ref;
+ /* Must be the last entry */
+ struct fsg_buffhd buffhds[0];
I would rather see it as “struct fsg_buffhd *buffhds;” since this change
requires both mass_storage.c and multi.c to be changed.
If the allocation of buffhds is done separately in fsg_common_init().
mass_storage.c and multi.c doesn't need to be changed. But it's little
tricky to know whether buffhds should be allocated or not.
They should be always allocated. If the code allocate fsg_common itself,
the
case is obvious. If caller passes a pointer to fsg_common structure, it is
assumed that the structure is not initialised, thus the function need to
allocate buffers.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarew...@google.com>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
