On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 12:01 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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.
>
I know :(.
> > +#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.)
>
Actually, in this version of the code it is the opposite, since the
average sensors have an additional attribute "interval". That will
change with the average patch. For now I'll keep the MAX() around, and
remove it with the average patch once we agree on how to do it.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
