[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2 05/12] replace split_value() with truncate_string()
>>> On 22.07.14 at 02:43, <roy.franz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/boot.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/boot.c > @@ -466,7 +466,13 @@ static char *__init get_value(const struct file *cfg, > const char *section, > break; > default: > if ( match && strncmp(ptr, item, ilen) == 0 && ptr[ilen] == '=' ) > - return ptr + ilen + 1; > + { > + ptr += ilen + 1; > + /* strip off any leading spaces */ Coding style. > + while ( *ptr && isspace(*ptr) ) > + ptr++; > + return ptr; > + } It's unclear how this whole hunk is related to the patch subject. > @@ -489,14 +495,19 @@ bool_t __init load_file(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle, > CHAR16 *name, > return 0; > } > > -static void __init split_value(char *s) > +/* Truncate string at first space, and return pointer > + * to remainder of string. > + */ Coding style again. > +char * __init truncate_string(char *s) Non-static function without declaration in any header. > { > - while ( *s && isspace(*s) ) > - ++s; > - place_string(&mb_modules[mbi.mods_count].string, s); > while ( *s && !isspace(*s) ) > ++s; > - *s = 0; > + if (*s) > + { > + *s = 0; > + return(s + 1); > + } > + return(NULL); None of the callers uses the return value - why is the function return type not "void"? Also, if there is a reason, then no parentheses around the return expression please. > @@ -893,7 +904,8 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE > *SystemTable) > } > if ( !name.s ) > blexit(L"No Dom0 kernel image specified."); > - split_value(name.s); > + place_string(&mb_modules[mbi.mods_count].string, name.s); > + truncate_string(name.s); > load_ok = load_file(dir_handle, s2w(&name), &kernel); > efi_bs->FreePool(name.w); > if ( !load_ok ) > @@ -907,7 +919,8 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE > *SystemTable) > name.s = get_value(&cfg, section.s, "ramdisk"); > if ( name.s ) > { > - split_value(name.s); > + place_string(&mb_modules[mbi.mods_count].string, name.s); > + truncate_string(name.s); > load_ok = load_file(dir_handle, s2w(&name), &ramdisk); > efi_bs->FreePool(name.w); > if ( !load_ok ) > @@ -920,7 +933,8 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE > *SystemTable) > if ( name.s ) > { > microcode_set_module(mbi.mods_count); > - split_value(name.s); > + place_string(&mb_modules[mbi.mods_count].string, name.s); > + truncate_string(name.s); > load_ok = load_file(dir_handle, s2w(&name), &ucode); > efi_bs->FreePool(name.w); > if ( !load_ok ) > @@ -930,7 +944,8 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE > *SystemTable) > name.s = get_value(&cfg, section.s, "xsm"); > if ( name.s ) > { > - split_value(name.s); > + place_string(&mb_modules[mbi.mods_count].string, name.s); > + truncate_string(name.s); > load_ok = load_file(dir_handle, s2w(&name), &xsm); > efi_bs->FreePool(name.w); > if ( !load_ok ) Looking at all these I wonder why you didn't retain split_value() as a simple wrapper. Furthermore splitting out the place_string() doesn't seem very efficient, as imo the goal ought to be for efi_start() to become common code (or at least the module loading part of fit), i.e. there's no win at all from the change you're doing here. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |