On Wed 12 Dec 2012 11:54:10 PM PST, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/13/12 00:22, Robert Love wrote:
>> @@ -210,25 +210,23 @@ static ssize_t
>> show_fcoe_fcf_device_##field(struct device *dev, \
>> #define fcoe_enum_name_search(title, table_type, table) \
>> static const char *get_fcoe_##title##_name(enum table_type
>> table_key) \
>> { \
>> - int i; \
>> - char *name = NULL; \
>> - \
>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(table); i++) { \
>> - if (table[i].value == table_key) { \
>> - name = table[i].name; \
>> - break; \
>> - } \
>> - } \
>> - return name; \
>> + if (table_key >= ARRAY_SIZE(table)) \
>> + return NULL; \
>> + return table[table_key]; \
>> }
>
> The old code was safe if table_key < 0 but the new code not. Can
> table_key be negative ?
>
>> +static char *fip_conn_type_names[] = {
>> + [ FIP_CONN_TYPE_UNKNOWN ] = "Unknown",
>> + [ FIP_CONN_TYPE_FABRIC ] = "Fabric",
>> + [ FIP_CONN_TYPE_VN2VN ] = "VN2VN",
>> +};
>
> A minor nit: indentation style is inconsistent here. Two elements are
> indented with a tab and another with eight spaces.
>
> Bart.
Thanks for the review and comments, Bart. I agree with both of your
points. I'll send an updated patch shortly. //Rob��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
