[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AF8F363.3010806@rtr.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:19 -0500
From: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>
Cc: jgarzik@...ox.com, mlord@...ox.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: Clean up hard coded array size calculation.
Thiago Farina wrote:
> Use ARRAY_SIZE macro of kernel api instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c
> index 6f5093b..a8a7be0 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c
> @@ -2217,7 +2217,7 @@ static unsigned int mv_qc_issue_fis(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
> int err = 0;
>
> ata_tf_to_fis(&qc->tf, link->pmp, 1, (void *)fis);
> - err = mv_send_fis(ap, fis, sizeof(fis) / sizeof(fis[0]));
> + err = mv_send_fis(ap, fis, ARRAY_SIZE(fis));
> if (err)
> return err;
>
..
What's the point of this ?
There is no "hardcoded array size" there to begin with,
and using that silly macro obscures the actual calculation.
So now, instead of being able to verify correctness at a glance,
I have to go off and research some silly macro and verify that
it does the right thing.
Kind of like all of those "typedef structs" that are abhored around here.
-ml
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists