In article <[email protected]>, Kengo NAKAHARA <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thus, here is the implementation of above specification (include man) > http://netbsd.org/~knakahara/unify-alloc-api/unify-alloc-api.patch >furthermore, here is if_wm usage example by [email protected] This has a problem; in the man and code page, you declare pci_intr_alloc as: +.Ft int +.Fn pci_intr_alloc "struct pci_attach_args *pa" \ +"pci_intr_handle_t **ihp" "pci_intr_type_t *counts" \ +"pci_intr_type_t max_type" And then in the examples you are passing it "int counts[x];": + int counts[PCI_INTR_TYPE_SIZE]; + counts[PCI_INTR_TYPE_MSIX] = 5; + counts[PCI_INTR_TYPE_MSI] = 1; + counts[PCI_INTR_TYPE_INTX] = 1; + error = pci_intr_alloc(pa, ihps, counts, I think you want int *counts in the declaration; this also avoids the problem of the enum being possibly unsigned (depending on the implementation). >http://netbsd.org/~knakahara/unify-alloc-api/unify-alloc-api-wm-example.patch I like the patch. There is a typo "interrput". >Could you comment this patch? I like it! Thanks for working on this... christos
