On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 15:19 -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi Bastien,
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:51 AM Bastien Nocera <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 19:57 +0300, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > to, 2024-05-30 kello 16:58 +0200, Bastien Nocera kirjoitti:
> > > > Don't manipulate the "req" structs as if they were flat arrays,
> > > > static
> > > > analysis and humans are both equally confused by this kind of
> > > > usage.
> > >
> > > struct start_req {
> > > union {
> > > struct seid required[1];
> > > struct seid seids[0];
> > > };
> > > } __attribute__ ((packed));
> > >
> > > and access only via req->seids?
> >
> > That's a good idea, I'll give it a try.
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > +#define
> > > > REQ_GET_NTH_SEID(x) \
> > > > + static struct seid
> > > > * \
> > > > + x##_req_get_nth_seid(struct x##_req *req, int count, int
> > > > i) \
> > > > + {
> > > > \
> > > > + if (count == 0 || i >=
> > > > count) \
> > > > + return
> > > > NULL; \
> > > > + if (i ==
> > > > 1) \
> > > > + return &req-
> > > > > first_seid; \
> > > > + return &req-
> > > > > other_seids[i]; \
> > >
> > > (i == 0) and [i - 1]?
> >
> > *facepalm*
> >
> > Yes, this will need a v2, thanks for spotting that.
>
> Ive applied the set except for this one, please resend once you are
> done with the suggested changes.
I've redone this patch, it's now in:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=867448
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bluetooth/20240702084900.773620-3-hadess@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Thanks to Pauli for the help.
>
