On 10.03.20 09:32, Janosch Frank wrote:
> It's nicer to just call one function than calling a function for each
> possible iplb type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/ipl.h | 20 +++++++++++---------
> target/s390x/diag.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> index d4813105db..211ce2dbeb 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> @@ -173,16 +173,18 @@ static inline bool iplb_valid_len(IplParameterBlock
> *iplb)
> return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) <= sizeof(IplParameterBlock);
> }
>
> -static inline bool iplb_valid_ccw(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
> +static inline bool iplb_valid(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
> {
> - return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_CCW_LEN &&
> - iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW;
> -}
> -
> -static inline bool iplb_valid_fcp(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
> -{
> - return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN &&
> - iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP;
> + switch (iplb->pbt) {
> + case S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP:
> + return (be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN &&
> + iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP);
Isnt the iplb->pbt check redundant due to the switch statement?
> + case S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW:
> + return (be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_CCW_LEN &&
> + iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW);
> + default:
same here.
