On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:01:38 +0100 (CET) Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:35:36 -0800 Geoff Levand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > +int ps3_repository_read_num_pu(unsigned int *num_pu)
> > > +{
> > > + int result;
> > > + u64 v1;
> > > +
> > > + v1 = 0;
> > > + result = read_node(PS3_LPAR_ID_CURRENT,
> > > + make_first_field("bi", 0),
> > > + make_field("pun", 0),
> > > + 0, 0,
> > > + &v1, NULL);
> > > + *num_pu = v1;
> >
> > Why not just pass "num_pu" instead of &v1 to read_node()?
>
> We need a temporary because num_pu and v1 differ in size.
> The alternative is to make num_pu u64.
Ooops, sorry. I read the second one first and didn't look hard enough
when I came back to this one.
> > > +int ps3_repository_read_pu_id(unsigned int pu_index, u64 *pu_id)
> > > +{
> > > + int result;
> > > + u64 v1;
> > > +
> > > + v1 = 0;
> > > + result = read_node(PS3_LPAR_ID_CURRENT,
> > > + make_first_field("bi", 0),
> > > + make_field("pu", pu_index),
> > > + 0, 0,
> > > + &v1, NULL);
> > > + *pu_id = v1;
> >
> > Similarly with "pu_id"?
>
> Yep, here we don't need the temporary.
Which, of course means that the "result" temporary isn't needed either.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpJg5SLN9zwh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
