On Friday 21 February 2003 3:15 pm, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:09:15PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Or, since you mention a macro, maybe your question is not about
> > the usefulness of acpi_resource_to_address64() itself, but about
> > how I implemented it, namely, with the copy_field and copy_address
> > macros:
>
> Can I suggest that you do a simple memcpy() for the case where you're
> translating an address64 into an address64?
I suppose we could. Or maybe we should just get to the root of the
thing and make a generic acpi_resource_address structure and never
even expose the 16, 32, and 64 bit variants. As far as I can tell,
they just make life difficult for consumers.
Then acpi_rs_address16_resource(), acpi_rs_address32_resource(),
and acpi_rs_address64_resource() could be collapsed into one function
with pretty trivial checks for the different sizes. And there's lots
of similar collapsing that could be done. I bet we'd even find one
or two defects in the process of removing all the duplicated code.
Of course, I guess that would change the CA interface, so that
constrains things a bit.
Bjorn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:34 EST