From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Owens Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:53:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] [patch] 2.4.20-021210 misaligned sal error record Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:42:48 -0800, David Mosberger wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:24:35 +1100, Keith Owens said: > > Keith> - sal_log_mod_error_info_t cache_check_info[16]; > Keith> - sal_log_mod_error_info_t tlb_check_info[16]; > Keith> - sal_log_mod_error_info_t bus_check_info[16]; > Keith> - sal_log_mod_error_info_t reg_file_check_info[16]; > Keith> - sal_log_mod_error_info_t ms_check_info[16]; > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t cache_check_info[0]; > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t tlb_check_info[0]; > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t bus_check_info[0]; > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t reg_file_check_info[0]; > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t ms_check_info[0]; > >Somehow I doubt a declaration of this form is a good idea. If the >records are all variable length, wouldn't it be saner to just declare >this with something along the lines of: > > Keith> + sal_log_mod_error_info_t check_info[0]; > >and then provide separate macros to access the indiviual portions? Either works, but nobody really cares about the various *check_info sections. What we care about is the processor static data that comes after these sections and is addressed via the new function. This was the minimal change to correctly access the processor static data, it is a one line change to mca.c. Replacing the individual *check_info[0] sections with a single check_info[0] means more changes to mca.c to use the new names. It also diverges from the SAL specification which lists the individual fields. Since the end result would be exactly the same as the existing code, I went for the minimal change and kept SAL documentation compatibility. Blame the SAL docs, I do ;).