[KJ] Re: [PATCH ARRAY_SIZE 4/4] kernel 2.6 size macro clean ups in

[KJ] Re: [PATCH ARRAY_SIZE 4/4] kernel 2.6 size macro clean ups in

[Aaron Cripps]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1 bytes --]



[-- Attachment #2: srfArray_Size.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3272 bytes --]

Went through and removed the MAX_EVCS and MAX_INIT_EVC macros in favor of
using the ARRAY_SIZE(arr) defined in kernel.h
Compile tested, no issues found.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Cripps <cripps@cs.mun.ca>

diff -Nuar linux-2.6/drivers/net/skfp/srf.c linux-2.6-patched/drivers/net/skfp/srf.c
--- linux-2.6/drivers/net/skfp/srf.c	2007-05-22 20:31:05.000000000 -0230
+++ linux-2.6-patched/drivers/net/skfp/srf.c	2007-05-25 22:40:20.000000000 -0230
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 #include "h/fddi.h"
 #include "h/smc.h"
 #include "h/smt_p.h"
-
+#include <include/linux/kernel.h>
 #define KERNEL
 #include "h/smtstate.h"
 
@@ -43,8 +43,6 @@
 static void smt_send_srf(struct s_smc *smc);
 static struct s_srf_evc *smt_get_evc(struct s_smc *smc, int code, int index);
 
-#define MAX_EVCS	(sizeof(smc->evcs)/sizeof(smc->evcs[0]))
-
 struct evc_init {
 	u_char code ;
 	u_char index ;
@@ -67,8 +65,6 @@
 	{ SMT_EVENT_PORT_PATH_CHANGE,		INDEX_PORT,NUMPHYS,SMT_P4053 } ,
 } ;
 
-#define MAX_INIT_EVC	(sizeof(evc_inits)/sizeof(evc_inits[0]))
-
 void smt_init_evc(struct s_smc *smc)
 {
 	struct s_srf_evc	*evc ;
@@ -84,7 +80,7 @@
 	evc = smc->evcs ;
 	init = evc_inits ;
 
-	for (i = 0 ; (unsigned) i < MAX_INIT_EVC ; i++) {
+	for (i = 0 ; (unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(evc_inits) ; i++) {
 		for (index = 0 ; index < init->n ; index++) {
 			evc->evc_code = init->code ;
 			evc->evc_para = init->para ;
@@ -98,7 +94,7 @@
 		init++ ;
 	}
 
-	if ((unsigned) (evc - smc->evcs) > MAX_EVCS) {
+	if ((unsigned) (evc - smc->evcs) > ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs)) {
 		SMT_PANIC(smc,SMT_E0127, SMT_E0127_MSG) ;
 	}
 
@@ -139,7 +135,8 @@
 		offset++ ;
 	}
 #ifdef	DEBUG
-	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; (unsigned) i < MAX_EVCS ; i++, evc++) {
+	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; 
+			(unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs) ; i++, evc++) {
 		if (SMT_IS_CONDITION(evc->evc_code)) {
 			if (!evc->evc_cond_state) {
 				SMT_PANIC(smc,SMT_E0128, SMT_E0128_MSG) ;
@@ -163,7 +160,8 @@
 	int			i ;
 	struct s_srf_evc	*evc ;
 
-	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; (unsigned) i < MAX_EVCS ; i++, evc++) {
+	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ;
+			(unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs) ; i++, evc++) {
 		if (evc->evc_code == code && evc->evc_index == index)
 			return(evc) ;
 	}
@@ -337,7 +335,8 @@
 	struct s_srf_evc	*evc ;
 	int			i ;
 
-	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; (unsigned) i < MAX_EVCS ; i++, evc++) {
+	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ;
+			(unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs) ; i++, evc++) {
 		evc->evc_rep_required = FALSE ;
 		if (SMT_IS_CONDITION(evc->evc_code))
 			*evc->evc_cond_state = FALSE ;
@@ -351,7 +350,8 @@
 	int			i ;
 
 	smc->srf.any_report = FALSE ;
-	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; (unsigned) i < MAX_EVCS ; i++, evc++) {
+	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ;
+			(unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs) ; i++, evc++) {
 		if (SMT_IS_CONDITION(evc->evc_code)) {
 			if (*evc->evc_cond_state == FALSE)
 				evc->evc_rep_required = FALSE ;
@@ -405,7 +405,8 @@
 	smt_add_para(smc,&pcon,(u_short) SMT_P1033,0,0) ;
 	smt_add_para(smc,&pcon,(u_short) SMT_P1034,0,0) ;
 
-	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ; (unsigned) i < MAX_EVCS ; i++, evc++) {
+	for (i = 0, evc = smc->evcs ;
+			(unsigned) i < ARRAY_SIZE(smc->evcs) ; i++, evc++) {
 		if (evc->evc_rep_required) {
 			smt_add_para(smc,&pcon,evc->evc_para,
 				(int)evc->evc_index,0) ;


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 187 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Re: [KJ] Re: [PATCH ARRAY_SIZE 4/4] kernel 2.6 size macro clean ups

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Aaron Cripps wrote:

...
+#include <include/linux/kernel.h>
...

  the above is simply wrong as the file name should be simply
<linux/kernel.h>.  but the bigger issue, as i mentioned before, is
that you should include patches directly in the text of your post, not
as an attachment, since an attachment isn't included automatically in
the reply, which is what i would have preferred to do here.

  attachments:  bad.

rday
-- 
====================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
====================================
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors