Re: [PATCH] libata queue updated

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Monday 30 January 2006 08:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I object.  Using array is intentional.  Slave aware controllers (PATA / 
>> ata_piix) will use [0..1], most SATA controllers will use only [0], and 
>> PM aware ones will use [0..15].  The intention was requiring low level 
>> drivers of only what they know and normalize them in the core layer.
>>
>> eg. Current std SATA reset routines consider the argument as *class (a 
>> single class value) and it's intentional.  As long as a lldd is aware of 
>> only one device per port, it's allowed/recommeded to consider the passed 
>> classes argument as a pointer to single class value.  The rest is upto 
>> the core libata layer.
>  
> But what you pass along is basically an unbounded array, which is
> a bug waiting to happen.


Hello, again.

I'm a little bit lost here.

So, are you saying....

struct ata_classes {
	unsigned int classes[2];
|;

is safer than

unsigned int *class;

?

> 
> So please let the core layer pass a bounded array here or provide
> a function from core layer to set that and check the index.
> 

Can you show me what you have in mind as code?

-- 
tejun