Am 21.10.2009 01:05, schrieb Juan Quintela:
> Adam Lackorzynski <a...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> +enum {
>> + /* Multiboot info */
>> + MBI_FLAGS = 0,
>> + MBI_MEM_LOWER = 4,
>> + MBI_MEM_UPPER = 8,
>> + MBI_BOOT_DEVICE = 12,
>> + MBI_CMDLINE = 16,
>> + MBI_MODS_COUNT = 20,
>> + MBI_MODS_ADDR = 24,
>> + MBI_MMAP_ADDR = 48,
>> +
>> + MBI_SIZE = 88,
>> +
>> + /* Multiboot modules */
>> + MB_MOD_START = 0,
>> + MB_MOD_END = 4,
>> + MB_MOD_CMDLINE = 8,
>> +
>> + MB_MOD_SIZE = 16,
>> +
>> + /* Region offsets */
>> + ADDR_E820_MAP = MULTIBOOT_STRUCT_ADDR + 0,
>> + ADDR_MBI = ADDR_E820_MAP + 0x500,
>> +
>> + /* Multiboot flags */
>> + MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MEMORY = 1 << 0,
>> + MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_BOOT_DEVICE = 1 << 1,
>> + MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_CMDLINE = 1 << 2,
>> + MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MODULES = 1 << 3,
>> + MULTIBOOT_FLAGS_MMAP = 1 << 6,
>> +};
>
> Why do you use a single enum, without name, and repeating the values?
> I think that using more than one enum is better here.
Right, this looks a bit strange even though it's correct. Otherwise the
new patch looks okay and I'd suggest to submit it for inclusion.
Kevin
