Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> - head = snprintf(name, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN, "IRQ%d: ", irq);
>>> - name += head;
>>> - strncpy(name, intr->name, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN-head);
>>> + head = snprintf(name_buf, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN, "IRQ%d: ", irq);
>>> + strncpy(name_buf + hea
Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> -head = snprintf(name, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN, "IRQ%d: ", irq);
>> -name += head;
>> -strncpy(name, intr->name, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN-head);
>> +head = snprintf(name_buf, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN, "IRQ%d: ", irq);
>> +strncpy(name_buf + head, intr->name, XNOBJECT_NAME_L
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> ...
>> This would be even better with a proper iterator construct.
>>
>
> Something like this? I think I tested most cases successfully (e.g. 4
> CPUs with a shared IRQ), but the code should also be better readable,
> thus better reviewable. Comments/fe
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> ...
> This would be even better with a proper iterator construct.
>
Something like this? I think I tested most cases successfully (e.g. 4
CPUs with a shared IRQ), but the code should also be better readable,
thus better reviewable. Comments/feedback welcome.
Jan
---
inc
