From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N0XWj-0005ai-7Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:30:41 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N0XWe-0005Z3-Fo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:30:40 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34379 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N0XWe-0005Yy-C5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:30:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37833)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1N0XWd-0001g5-T7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:30:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4ADED478.5090108@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:29:28 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1255268921-5403-1-git-send-email-adam@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>	<1255268921-5403-2-git-send-email-adam@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>	<4AD3085A.1050906@redhat.com>	<20091014161114.GE25818@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>	<4ADC2394.5050403@redhat.com>	<20091020182251.GD8648@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
	<m3aazl8y4m.fsf@neno.mitica>
In-Reply-To: <m3aazl8y4m.fsf@neno.mitica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] multiboot: Limit number of multiboot
	modules
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Juan Quintela <quintela@trasno.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 21.10.2009 01:05, schrieb Juan Quintela:
> Adam Lackorzynski <adam@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
>> +enum {
>> +    /* Multiboot info */
>> +    MBI_FLAGS       = 0,
>> +    MBI_MEM_LOWER   = 4,
>> +    MBI_MEM_UPPER   = 8,
>> +    MBI_BOOT_DEVICE = 12,
>> +    MBI_CMDLINE     = 16,
>> +    MBI_MODS_COUNT  = 20,
>> +    MBI_MODS_ADDR   = 24,
>> +    MBI_MMAP_ADDR   = 48,
>> +
>> +    MBI_SIZE        = 88,
>> +
>> +    /* Multiboot modules */
>> +    MB_MOD_START    = 0,
>> +    MB_MOD_END      = 4,
>> +    MB_MOD_CMDLINE  = 8,
>> +
>> +    MB_MOD_SIZE     = 16,
>> +
>> +    /* Region offsets */
>> +    ADDR_E820_MAP = MULTIBOOT_STRUCT_ADDR + 0,
>> +    ADDR_MBI      = ADDR_E820_MAP + 0x500,
>> +
>> +    /* Multiboot flags */
>> +    MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MEMORY      = 1 << 0,
>> +    MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_BOOT_DEVICE = 1 << 1,
>> +    MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_CMDLINE     = 1 << 2,
>> +    MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MODULES     = 1 << 3,
>> +    MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MMAP        = 1 << 6,
>> +};
> 
> Why do you use a single enum, without name, and repeating the values?
> I think that using more than one enum is better here.

Right, this looks a bit strange even though it's correct. Otherwise the
new patch looks okay and I'd suggest to submit it for inclusion.

Kevin