Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> writes: > On 14 April 2015 at 00:07, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: >> Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> +#define CONF_MAXGPUDEVICES 4 >>> typedef struct { >>> GenericListRec list; >>> const char *scrn_identifier; >>> @@ -276,6 +277,10 @@ typedef struct { >>> char *scrn_comment; >>> int scrn_virtualX, scrn_virtualY; >>> char *match_seat; >>> + >>> + int num_gpu_devices; >>> + const char *scrn_gpu_device_str[CONF_MAXGPUDEVICES]; >>> + XF86ConfDevicePtr scrn_gpu_devices[CONF_MAXGPUDEVICES]; >> >> It seems like just using realloc would actually make this easier as you >> wouldn't need to deal with checking for this limit? >> >> Hard limits are annoying anyways. >> > > Well I mainly did this because that is what parser does everywhere it takes > multiple values, it never seems to use realloc for anything like this. > > I'd prefer the parser code to be consistent rather than useful, since nobody > likes to touch or maintain it, and coming back in a few years wondering > why this is realloc based and the rest isn't could be confusing.
Yeah, match the existing syle, even if sub-optimal. Sounds good to me. Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> -- -keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel