On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:32 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I know that this patch is already applied and merged, but I spotted this
>> problem:
>>
>> On Thursday 19 October 2017 12:50:15 Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> > +/* calls that are explicitly blacklisted */
>> > +static struct smbios_call call_blacklist[] = {
>> > + {0x0000, 01, 07}, /* manufacturing use */
>> > + {0x0000, 06, 05}, /* manufacturing use */
>> > + {0x0000, 11, 03}, /* write once */
>> > + {0x0000, 11, 07}, /* write once */
>>
>> Numbers prefixed by zero means that they are in octal notation, right?
> Is that how the kernel interprets an integer prefix by zero?
No, compiler.
> I prefixed by zero for readability, they're supposed to be decimal.
...which make a confusion. Luckily you don't have 8 and 9 there,
otherwise I even don't know if it would be a compilation warning.
>> This can lead to misunderstanding, confusion or problems in future...
>>
>> Can we have all numbers either in hexadecimal or decimal notation?
>
> Could you elaborate more why this is problematic the way it is?
> Are you meaning you would rather see this?
> {0x0000, 1, 7}, /* manufacturing use */
> {0x0000, 6, 5}, /* manufacturing use */
> {0x0000, 11, 3}, /* write once */
> {0x0000, 11, 7}, /* write once */
I think something like that. You might use white space for indentation.
>
> That seems less readable to me but should interpret the same way.
>
> Perhaps it would be better if you submit a patch with what is clearer to
> you.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
