On 8/26/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 26 2007 04:51, Michael J. Evans wrote: > > { > >- if (dev_cnt >= 0 && dev_cnt < 127) > >- detected_devices[dev_cnt++] = dev; > >+ struct detected_devices_node *node_detected_dev; > >+ node_detected_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*node_detected_dev), GFP_KERNEL);\ > > What's the \ good for, besides escaping the newline > that is ignored as whitespace anyway? :-) >
I hadn't even noticed that, I suppose I mashed the key above enter at some time. Removing from my local file. > >@@ -5772,3 +5790,8 @@ static void autostart_arrays(int part) > >- for (i = 0; i < dev_cnt; i++) { > >- dev_t dev = detected_devices[i]; > >- > >+ /* FIXME: max 'int' #DEFINEd somewhere? not 0x7FFFFFFF ? */ > >+ while (!list_empty(&all_detected_devices) && i_scanned < 0x7FFFFFFF) { > > I doubt someone really has _that_ many devices. Of course, to be on the > safer side, make it an unsigned int. That way, people could put in about > 0xFFFFFFFE devs (which is even less likely than 0x7FFFFFFF) > There is that, but I'm almost expecting someone to ask me to remove both the ints and kprint statement. (I'd like them as part of some kind of verbose startup that people would actually think to use however.) Additionally a though occurred to me earlier, if there are That many devices, the chance of a UUID namespace collision might actually be realistic anyway. Though I'm not short sighted enough to put it past anyone to have more then 32/64K possible block devices. Anyone with that much cash today is probably buying hardware raid, but who knows. > >+ i_scanned++; > >+ node_detected_dev = list_entry(all_detected_devices.next, > >+ struct detected_devices_node, list); > >+ list_del(&node_detected_dev->list); > >+ dev = node_detected_dev->dev; > >+ kfree(node_detected_dev); > > Jan > -- > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html