From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932072AbXBSK73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:59:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932074AbXBSK73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:59:29 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:55008 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932072AbXBSK72 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:59:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:59:27 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Frank Haverkamp , Thomas Gleixner , David Woodhouse , Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code Message-ID: <20070219105927.GB16930@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Artem Bityutskiy , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Thomas Gleixner , David Woodhouse , Josh Boyer References: <20070217165424.5845.4390.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070217165454.5845.30875.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070217165454.5845.30875.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > +/* UBI headers must take 64 bytes. The below is a hacky way to ensure this */ > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_EC_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_VID_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); please use BUILD_BUG_ON instead. > + > +static int ubi_attach_mtd_dev(const char *mtd_dev, int vid_hdr_offset, > + int data_offset); > +static void ubi_destroy_dev(int ubi_num); Can you reorder the code to avoid all these forward declarations please? > + /* Attach MTD devices */ > + for (i = 0; i < mtd_devs; i++) { > + struct mtd_dev_param *p = &mtd_dev_param[i]; > + > + cond_resched(); > + err = -EINVAL; This looks very odd. > +module_param_call(mtd, ubi_mtd_param_parse, NULL, NULL, 000); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(mtd, "MTD devices to attach. Parameter format: " > + "mtd=[,,]. " > + "Multiple \"mtd\" parameters may be specified.\n" > + "MTD devices may be specified by their number or name. " > + "Optional \"vid_hdr_offs\" and \"data_offs\" parameters " > + "specify UBI VID header position and data starting " > + "position to be used by UBI.\n" > + "Example: mtd=content,1984,2048 mtd=4 - attach MTD device" > + "with name content using VID header offset 1984 and data " > + "start 2048, and MTD device number 4 using default " > + "offsets"); This is a very odd paramater interface. We really don't want drivers to use module_param_call directly. You probably want various module_param_array calls instead.