On Mon, 2 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 08:54:48AM -0800, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 08:18:03AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
On 12/28/22 10:16 AM, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
+ u64 params[];
u64 *params
This will break the overflow.h macros, no?
Besides that it will break the code for sure as it's not an equivalent.
I don't understand how this will break the overflow.h macros. The definition
of struct dfl_feature_info and all of its uses are in a single file, dfl.c.
Hint: __must_be_array()
As I said, the proposed change is not acceptable since it's not an equivalent.
Ah, you meant that there is no use of macros from overflow in the dfl.c?
IIRC we discussed that some of the code may make use of them, or am I
mistaken?
There currently is one usage of struct_size() from overflow.h in dfl.c,
and my patch adds another usage of struct_size(). struct dfl_feature_info
ends with a trailing array of u64.
I think the confusion is with struct dfl_feature and/or struct struct
dfl_device. Those structs don't end with a trailing array, and those
structs are not used with macros from overview.h.
Thanks for the feedback,
Matthew Gerlach
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
