From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MuwLQ-0000uX-Uy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:47:52 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MuwLL-0000u3-Gf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:47:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37047 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MuwLL-0000tw-9G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:47:47 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48159)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1MuwLK-0007Jh-Rg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:47:47 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n95MljT5005686
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:47:45 -0400
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091005204611.GA4384@redhat.com> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message
	of "Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:46:11 +0200")
References: <20091005204611.GA4384@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:47:28 +0200
Message-ID: <m33a5xbgqn.fsf@neno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu/pci: clarify pci config load routine
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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> PCI load routine has to be called with size equal to 256 (otherwise it
> will crash in weird ways).  So assert this,

Agreed with the assert().

> making code clearer.
> Also avoid dynamically sized array on stack - good for portability.

size has the right value, namely sizeof(PCIDevice.config).  Only real
advantage is that you are not using a dynamically sized array on the
stack.

I don't care one way or another.  And as you are more probable to touch
that code than me, it is up to you :)

Later, Juan.