On 05/18/17 22:56, Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2017-05-18 12:40:30, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 05/18/17 20:49, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> On 2017-05-18 08:14:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h >>>> b/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h >>>> index 4247d21d72f8..beb11e3f9a90 100644 >>>> --- a/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h >>>> +++ b/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h >>>> @@ -58,8 +58,14 @@ typedef struct { >>>> // >>>> // Constants >>>> // >>>> -#define EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE (FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize)) >>>> -#define EMU_FVB_SIZE (2 * FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize)) >>>> +#define EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE \ >>>> + EFI_PAGE_SIZE >>>> +#define EMU_FVB_NUM_SPARE_BLOCKS \ >>>> + EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES ((UINTN)FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize)) >>>> +#define EMU_FVB_NUM_TOTAL_BLOCKS \ >>>> + (2 * EMU_FVB_NUM_SPARE_BLOCKS) >>>> +#define EMU_FVB_SIZE \ >>>> + (EMU_FVB_NUM_TOTAL_BLOCKS * EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE) >>>> #define FTW_WRITE_QUEUE_SIZE \ >>>> (FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwWorkingSize) - \ >>>> sizeof (EFI_FAULT_TOLERANT_WORKING_BLOCK_HEADER)) >>> >>> In the cases where we don't exceed 80 columns, I don't see the excess >>> newlines as helping here, style-wise. >> >> My first preference would have been >> >> #define SHORT_MACRO_NAME replacement text 1 >> #define ANNOYINGLY_LONG_MACRO_NAME replacement text 2 >> >> That is, to keep both the macro names and the replacement texts aligned. >> However, that way I wouldn't fit into 80 chars on some lines, and then >> breaking only *some* macro definitions to multiple lines looked >> horrible. Which is why I opted for the current layout: it is uniform, >> and it does preserve the alignment for both macro names and replacement >> texts separately. > > I don't think you would make a block of function calls all multiline > if one call required it. I see your point and I agree that aligning > things can be nice if it works out. It seems like it doesn't in this > case. > > Could FTW_SPARE_SIZE and FTW_WORKING_SIZE macros help?
Assuming you mean those as shorthands for the FixedPcdGet32() macro invocations, they wouldn't (fully); FTW_WRITE_QUEUE_SIZE would remain overlong even after such a replacement. > > If you feel strongly about this current format, then keep it, as I > don't feel too strongly about it. I don't feel strongly about this layout, so if (when) you have an incremental patch, I'll be glad to review it. What I do feel strongly about :) is not wanting to retest the -bios scenarios, which is sort of required once these macros are touched. (The ASSERT() below is a lot easier / quicker to test.) Due to the testing impact, I prefer to keep the current layout. > >>> >>> Could you add to the entry-point an assert: >>> >>> ASSERT(FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize) % >>> EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE == 0); >> >> Should I squash that into this patch? > > Yeah. No need for resend. Thanks, I'll squash it then. Cheers, Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel