On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 11:03 +1000, Stewart Smith wrote: > Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> writes: > > The encoding of the lengths in the ibm_architecture_vec array is > > "interesting" to say the least. It's non-obvious how the number of bytes > > we provide relates to the length value. > > > > In fact we already got it wrong once, see 11e9ed43ca8a "Fix up > > ibm_architecture_vec definition". > > > > So add some macros to make it (hopefully) clearer. These at least have > > the property that the integer present in the code is equal to the number > > of bytes that follows it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> > > Seems at least as correct as the code was before... so, > > Reviewed-by: Stewart Smith <[email protected]> > > (not actually compiled or tested or anything, but my internal C > preprocesser says it looks okay :)
Thanks for the review, it's one of those patches it would be easy to get wrong because it's so simple in theory. As a test I deliberately broke the NUM_VECTORS value, and .. my system booted just fine! So I think I'll give this a bit more scrutiny and work out what's going on there first :) cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
