On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 16:21:23 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Use defines for array sizes. For alarm attributes, take into account that both
> the generic alarm flag as well as individual alarm attributes may be provided
> by a driver (even though that should not be the case).
>
> Remove overflow checks from get_sensor_limit_data(), as overflows should
> no longer happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> prog/sensors/chips.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/prog/sensors/chips.c b/prog/sensors/chips.c
> index d1d2a17..36264a8 100644
> --- a/prog/sensors/chips.c
> +++ b/prog/sensors/chips.c
> (...)
> @@ -517,14 +511,21 @@ static const struct sensor_subfeature_list power_avg_sensors[] = {
> { -1, NULL, 0, NULL }
> };
>
> +#define MAX(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? : (b))
This doesn't do what you want. You can't use the short form of ?: here.
> +#define NUM_POWER_ALARMS 4
> +#define NUM_POWER_SENSORS (ARRAY_SIZE(power_common_sensors) \
> + + MAX(ARRAY_SIZE(power_inst_sensors), \
> + ARRAY_SIZE(power_avg_sensors)) \
> + - NUM_POWER_ALARMS - 2)
According to our parallel discussion about instant+average power
sensors, this can be simplified (ARRAY_SIZE(power_inst_sensors) will
always be greater than ARRAY_SIZE(power_avg_sensors) by design.)
Other than this, changes look OK, feel free to commit.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
