On 23.09.2018 04:28, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 22:03:56 +0200 > From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> > Message-ID: <164fe80f-089f-ea38-1751-e442e6125c43%gmx.com@localhost> > > > | I know, but in this case the symbol name (preprocessor symbol) was > | available in other functions in the same file. I've decided that it will > | be simpler to just change 1 line of code. > > I don't think you understood the point, Christos wasn't suggesting (I don't > think) that you do away with s_max, but rather that the code become > more like... > > #define S_MAX 3 > > const int s_max = S_MAX, ss_max = 3, eu_max = 8; > int s, ss; > u32 fuse2, eu_disable[S_MAX], s_enable, ss_disable; > > as, as it is now ... > > const int s_max = 3, ss_max = 3, eu_max = 8; > int s, ss; > u32 fuse2, eu_disable[3], s_enable, ss_disable; > > it is no longer obvious which of s_max and ss_max (both of which > are 3), if either, is intended to be the same as the array size of eu_disable > (which was obvious in the original, where the dimension of eu_disable > was s_max). > > If s_max and ss_max are both intended to always be the same (in which > case I would wonder why they both exist) then making ss_max = S_MAX > in the declaration would be appropriate as well. > > kre > I have no preference on the style. I was wondering whether to include a comment such as eu_disable[3 /* s_max */], submit upstream and do it the way it can be accepted by upstream.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature