On Fri, Jul 03 2015, Krzysztof Opasiak wrote:
> I'm looking on this code today an I see another option. We could simply
> remove nluns from opts and always iterate:
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(luns); ++i)
> if (luns[i]) {
> /* Do something useful */
> }
>
> and add some simple function:
>
> int _fsg_common_get_max_lun(luns)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(luns) - 1; i >= 0 && !luns[i]; --i)
>
> return i;
> }
>
> with such approach we doesn't need to store number of elements in arrays
> or max index. Instead of this we just do something only for elements
> which has been allocated and determine max lun dynamically when handling
> GET_MAX_LUN request. What do you thing about this Michal? Maybe you have
> another idea how to solve this?
I think this is reasonable. One thing to check is how this would affect
changing LUNs. IIRC we currently do something along the lines of:
if (lun >= nluns)
reject
curlun = luns[lun]; // may be NULL if gadget has non-contiguous LUNs
if we drop nluns we would have just:
curlun = luns[lun]; // may be NULL if gadget has non-contiguous LUNs
and perhaps then we need:
if (!curlun)
reject
But yes, the idea sounds good to me.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<[email protected]>--<xmpp:[email protected]>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
