[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to u
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v4 02/10] s390-ccw: refactor eckd_block_num to use CHS |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:06:50 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 |
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 <address@hidden>
> ---
> 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?
Thomas
PS: Apart from that, the patch looks fine to me.