qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to use CHS
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:06:50 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2

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?

 Thomas


PS: Apart from that, the patch looks fine to me.



reply via email to

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