From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Detlev Zundel Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:49:53 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] Flatten and solidify block_dev_desc layout In-Reply-To: (Che-liang Chiou's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:36:56 +0800") References: <1319178708-10881-1-git-send-email-clchiou@chromium.org> <1319178708-10881-2-git-send-email-clchiou@chromium.org> <20111021190914.8C7DB18AE81C@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Che-liang, > I guess I have to put this patchset on hold. I will get you back if we > could proceed with this patchset. Please don't top-post. The mails really are more difficult to read in context. > Regards, > Che-Liang > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Che-Liang Chiou, >> >> In message <1319178708-10881-2-git-send-email-clchiou@chromium.org> you wrote: >>> The block_dev_desc struct has #ifdef on lba48 and variable-size on lba >>> and so its layout varies from config to config. ?At least part_efi.c has >>> partially complained about this. >>> >>> This patch makes lba48 be always defined and lba be fixed to largest >>> size that an LBA would need so that the block_dev_desc layout would be >>> an invariant with respect to configurations. >>> >>> Doing so would waste a few extra bytes per struct block_dev_desc, which >>> I believe is not critical. >> >> How much exactly is "a few bytes"? As far as I can see, the difference is 4 bytes _and_ it is a runtime data structure, so it should not make any difference for the code size. Che-liang can surely correct me if I'm wrong. Moreover it seems we need to do something comparable sooner or later. If we want to support large block devices and the partition code uses block devices, that code needs to be prepared to work with that. So in general I'm in favor of doing something like this. On the other hand, the patch changes the datatype of a field which gets used in lots of places - Che-liang, did you run a MAKEALL with this patch and check that no more warnings/errors are introduced? Cheers Detlev -- The latest code looks a bit similar to the old [linux] big-reader-locks hack (which got dropped for good many eons ago and with which i deny any involvement with, such as having authored it. [oh, did i say that out loud? crap.]), imple- mented cleanly and properly. -- Ingo Molnar <20090428124033.GA1655@elte.hu> -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de