Am 25.05.2011 18:19 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:01:13 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> The tests for NULL pointers of chipset_enables etc. make a lot of sense, >> but the size checks only make sense if you know the array size from >> elsewhere and if you want to check that the array size matches the size >> an array walker (loop until ->somemember==NULL) would see. That means >> the selfcheck function would have to live in the same file as the array >> or you use another global variable which holds sizeof(array). >> > or making the size accessible out of scope with global functions, yes. > do we want that? i think it's ok for now. >
OK. > you did not mention "flashchips". i would not think that there exists a > minimal use case for having that one empty, but just to be sure: > the application of "|| flashchips[0].vendor == NULL" is ok there? > Yes. >> Am 24.05.2011 02:21 schrieb Stefan Tauner: >>> - int status; >>> + int status; /* OK=0 and NT=1 are defines only. Beware! */ >>> >> Do we want an enum instead? >> > i like strong types, but i dont care too much in this case. > If we use an enum here, we should also use an enum everywhere else for tested/untested. > new patch attached. > Looks good, thanks for addressing the review comments. I assume you tested that the output still looks OK and that it compiles. Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> Please go ahead and commit. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
