From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48585) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eefXd-0006cY-9p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:18:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eefXY-0001dW-9V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:18:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:17:48 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180125121748.1e476515.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1516732013-18272-1-git-send-email-walling@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1516732013-18272-3-git-send-email-walling@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to use CHS List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: "Collin L. Walling" , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:06:50 +0100 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 23.01.2018 19:26, Collin L. Walling wrote: > > Add new cylinder/head/sector struct. Use it to calculate > > eckd block numbers instead of a BootMapPointer (which used > > eckd chs anyway). > > > > Signed-off-by: Collin L. Walling > > --- > > pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > > pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h | 8 ++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > index 6b6c915..621adbe 100644 > > --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > @@ -95,32 +95,32 @@ static inline void verify_boot_info(BootInfo *bip) > > "Bad block size in zIPL section of the 1st record."); > > } > > > > -static block_number_t eckd_block_num(BootMapPointer *p) > > +static block_number_t eckd_block_num(EckdCHS chs) > > Should this maybe rather be call-by-pointer instead? I'm not a fan of > passing structs by value, though it might be OK in this case since it's > a small struct only... > > What do others think? I think passing a struct by value is fine for things like a schid (which is basically just the structured version of an integer). In this case, I think passing a pointer would look nicer.