On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:06:50 +0100 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 23.01.2018 19:26, Collin L. Walling wrote: > > Add new cylinder/head/sector struct. Use it to calculate > > eckd block numbers instead of a BootMapPointer (which used > > eckd chs anyway). > > > > Signed-off-by: Collin L. Walling <wall...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > > pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h | 8 ++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > index 6b6c915..621adbe 100644 > > --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c > > @@ -95,32 +95,32 @@ static inline void verify_boot_info(BootInfo *bip) > > "Bad block size in zIPL section of the 1st record."); > > } > > > > -static block_number_t eckd_block_num(BootMapPointer *p) > > +static block_number_t eckd_block_num(EckdCHS chs) > > Should this maybe rather be call-by-pointer instead? I'm not a fan of > passing structs by value, though it might be OK in this case since it's > a small struct only... > > What do others think? I think passing a struct by value is fine for things like a schid (which is basically just the structured version of an integer). In this case, I think passing a pointer would look nicer.
