Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:08:58 -0500 Robert Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- seq_printf(m, "R4=0x%lx\n", h_entitled);
- seq_printf(m, "R5=0x%lx\n", h_unallocated);
- seq_printf(m, "R6=0x%lx\n", h_aggregation);
- seq_printf(m, "R7=0x%lx\n", h_resource);
This changes a user visible interface by removing the above. I don't
know if this matters (probably not), but it should be mentioned in the
changelog.
You're right this should have been mentioned. The values it is printing
out are the raw values returned from the H_GET_PPP hcall. The values
were then parsed and pretty printed afterwards. I don't see a need to
print these values out twice.
+ if (new_entitled)
+ *new_weight = current_weight;
+
+ if (new_weight)
+ *new_entitled = current_entitled;
These look fishy - checking one pointer for NULL and then updating via
the other pointer.
I thought something about this looked strange...
Unfortunately this code gets slightly updated again in patch 3/19 of
this patch series. The point you make is valid though, should not be
de-referencing the pointers without validating them.
I'll update this patch with a new changelog and pull the change from
patch 3/19 into this pach where it belongs.
-Nathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
