On 10/9/24 11:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.10.2024 23:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bootinfo.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bootinfo.h
@@ -54,8 +54,24 @@ struct boot_info {
struct boot_module mods[MAX_NR_BOOTMODS + 1];
};
-#endif /* __XEN_X86_BOOTINFO_H__ */
+static inline int __init next_boot_module_index(
+ const struct boot_info *bi, enum bootmod_type t, int offset)
Instead of "offset" maybe better "start" or "from"? Further, plain int
(as also used ...
Will change to start.
+{
+ int i;
... here) isn't really liked for ...
+ for ( i = offset; i < bi->nr_modules; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( bi->mods[i].type == t )
... array indexing. Perhaps the function itself would better have
unsigned int return type as well, ...
+ return i;
+ }
+
+ return -1;
... using UINT_MAX or some other suitable constant here instead?
I was initially going to disagree as returning a value less than zero is
much more natural/reasonable than UINIT_MAX. But then thinking about it,
another natural value to reflect an error/not found is a value larger
than MAX_NR_BOOTMODS.
Will switch to unsigned and add code comment that larger than
MAX_NR_BOOTMODS is error/not found condition.
v/r,
dps
