On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:30:16 +0100
Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
> ---
> hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> index 316fca9..144e0c6 100644
> --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
> @@ -1017,6 +1017,15 @@ FWCfgState *fw_cfg_find(void)
> return FW_CFG(object_resolve_path(FW_CFG_PATH, NULL));
> }
>
> +static void fw_cfg_init(Object *obj)
> +{
> + FWCfgState *s = FW_CFG(obj);
> +
> + s->entries[0] = g_new0(FWCfgEntry, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
> + s->entries[1] = g_new0(FWCfgEntry, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
> + s->entry_order = g_new0(int, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
it doesn't seem right,
consider,
object_new(fwcfg)
1: fw_cfg_init -> g_new0(FWCfgEntry, fw_cfg_max_entry(s) ->
FW_CFG_FILE_SLOTS_DFLT);
2: set property x-file-slots
3: realize -> fw_cfg_file_slots_allocate()
> @@ -1052,10 +1062,6 @@ static void fw_cfg_file_slots_allocate(FWCfgState *s,
> Error **errp)
> file_slots_max);
> return;
> }
> -
> - s->entries[0] = g_new0(FWCfgEntry, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
> - s->entries[1] = g_new0(FWCfgEntry, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
> - s->entry_order = g_new0(int, fw_cfg_max_entry(s));
opps, s->entries doesn't account for new values of x-file-slots
So question is why this patch is needed at all (it needs some reasoning in
commit message)?
So for now NACK and I'd suggest to drop this patch.
