On 07/08/2013 08:16 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> -static struct vd_config *find_vdcr(struct ddf_super *ddf, unsigned int inst)
>> +static int find_index_in_bvd(const struct ddf_super *ddf,
>> + const struct vd_config *conf, unsigned int n,
>> + unsigned int *n_bvd)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * Find the index of the n-th valid physical disk in this BVD
>> + */
>> + unsigned int i, j;
>> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < ddf->mppe &&
>> + j < __be16_to_cpu(conf->prim_elmnt_count); i++) {
>> + if (conf->phys_refnum[i] != 0xffffffff) {
>
> Should that 0xffffffff be DDF_NOTFOUND?
I'd say rather not. Currently the DDF code is using 0xffffffff
explicitly for "invalid refnums" (value from the spec) in several
places. DDF_NOTFOUND is used by my code as a return code for functions
returning "unsigned int". It's similar but not quite the same.
The readability DDF code could be improved by using a symbolic name like
DDF_INVALID_REFNUM = 0xffffffff, and possibly using a different numeric
value for DDF_NOTFOUND. But that's the kind of stuff that I've avoided
so far.
>
> (I glazed over reading the rest of this patch .. sorry. Maybe I'll try again
> another day)
Thanks for reading it.
Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
