Re: [PATCH v5 03/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 09/23/2016 10:24 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 03/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
>>>> +printf "\n    /* Beginning of GPL-only code */\n\n"
>>>> +
>>>> +printf "    /* _S3 and _S4 are in separate SSDTs */\n"
>>>> +printf "    Name (\_S5, Package (0x04) {\n"
>>>> +printf "        0x00,  /* PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP */\n"
>>>> +printf "        0x00,  /* PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP */\n"
>>>> +printf "        0x00,  /* reserved */\n"
>>>> +printf "        0x00   /* reserved */\n"
>>>> +printf "    })\n"
>>>> +
>>>> +printf "    Name(PICD, 0)\n"
>>>> +printf "    Method(_PIC, 1) {\n"
>>>> +printf "        Store(Arg0, PICD)\n"
>>>> +printf "    }\n"
>>> Wouldn't this be better readable with "echo", avoiding all the \n
>>> instances? Actually this seems to even apply to most if not
>>> everything further down, as so far I didn't spot a case where
>>> you actually pass anything other than just a format string.
>> Format string is the only reason. There are a couple of instances where
>> output is formatted and I felt that having both echo and printf would
>> feel inconsistent.
> I don't think there is anything wrong with inconsistency.
>
> But really, why not make this (or most of it) a here document (ie with
> <<) ?  

Sorry, I don't follow this. What is a "here document"?

-boris

> That would remove a lot of the quoting clutter (and would also
> avoid any bugs where shell metacharacters or printf metacharacters are
> unintentionally written unquoted).
>
> Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel