[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to u

From: Collin L. Walling
Subject: Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to use CHS
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:55:21 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0

On 01/25/2018 06:17 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:06:50 +0100
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:

On 23.01.2018 19:26, Collin L. Walling wrote:
Add new cylinder/head/sector struct. Use it to calculate
eckd block numbers instead of a BootMapPointer (which used
eckd chs anyway).

Signed-off-by: Collin L. Walling <address@hidden>
  pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
  pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h |  8 ++++++--
  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
index 6b6c915..621adbe 100644
--- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
+++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
@@ -95,32 +95,32 @@ static inline void verify_boot_info(BootInfo *bip)
                 "Bad block size in zIPL section of the 1st record.");
-static block_number_t eckd_block_num(BootMapPointer *p)
+static block_number_t eckd_block_num(EckdCHS chs)
Should this maybe rather be call-by-pointer instead? I'm not a fan of
passing structs by value, though it might be OK in this case since it's
a small struct only...

What do others think?
I think passing a struct by value is fine for things like a schid
(which is basically just the structured version of an integer). In this
case, I think passing a pointer would look nicer.

Easy enough :)

- Collin L Walling

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]