On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:58:54AM -0500, David Milburn wrote:
> #define TAG_DATA(type, tag_ptr) ((type *) tag_ptr+1)
Ok, here are some comments. First off, there seems to be excess unnecessary
use of __attribute__((packed)) in there which is definitely not needed.
You've got:
_u16 tag_type;
_u16 tag_len;
char tag_data[0];
This needs no packing at all on ARM:
&tag_type + 1 = &tag_len
&tag_len + 1 = &tag_data.
Secondly, why do we have such a horrible TAG_DATA macro? All its doing
is trying to convert a tag pointer into a data pointer. Surely the
following would be a hell of a lot cleaner, both from a readability
standpoint, and in terms of type sizes:
#define TAG_DATA(type, tag_ptr) ((type *) (tag_ptr)->data)
However, I don't believe that this is where your problem lies, I believe
that something else is writing into this tag's data field, setting the
0x0400 part of the address.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
_______________________________________________
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
Please visit the above address for information on this list.
