[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Sebastien Roy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>>> * 2583-2589: I don't understand the need for the cascading chain
>>>>> of if statements here. This isn't much of an improvement over the
>>>>> previous code, and the indentation is still not cstyle compliant.
>>>>> It could be simplified to:
>>>>>
>>>>> if ((GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i])) & 0xff) == 'P' &&
>>>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+1])) & 0xff) == 'C' &&
>>>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+2])) & 0xff) == 'I' &&
>>>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+3])) & 0xff) == 'R') {
>>>>> vpd_base =
>>>>> (int)((GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+8])) & 0xff) |
>>>>> (GET_ROM8(&(hmep->hme_romp[i+9])) & 0xff) << 8);
>>>>> break; /* VPD pointer found */
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Accept. Apart from the Cstyle indentation (which admittedly is
>>>> weird, but it was weird before I touched it), there isn't really
>>>> any runtime difference. The code actually passes cstyle -cPp as it
>>>> stands. (What I did was make the minimal changes needed to pass
>>>> Cstyle. I didn't want to get into restructuring code too much...
>>>> otherwise there are far far worse places in this code.) I'm
>>>> changing it anyway. (I think I did it this way when I made the
>>>> same change in eri.)
>>>>
>>> Also note that my suggested change also includes comparing ascii
>>> characters with ... get this ... ascii characters! :-) Go figure.
>>> The hex values with little comments explaining which ascii
>>> characters they mapped to was an especially nice touch in the old
>>> code. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Heh. Yeah. I made the same change in eri.c IIRC. When hme I took a
>> more conservative approach in my changes than I did in eri.
>>
>>
>
> For the uninitiated, what does "PCIR" represent?
>
> Neither the old code or the new code explains what is being
> done here and nor is it obvious?
"PCI ROM". Its a standard signature found on PCI expansion ROMs,
specified by the PCI SIG.
-- Garrett
>
> Darren
>
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
