Hey Etiennem
[...]
> > > > + uint *secondary_mpart)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i, ret;
> > > > + u32 mdata_parts;
> > > > + efi_guid_t part_type_guid;
> > > > + struct disk_partition info;
> > > > + const efi_guid_t fwu_mdata_guid = FWU_MDATA_GUID;
> > > > +
> > > > + mdata_parts = 0;
> > > > + for (i = 1; i < MAX_SEARCH_PARTITIONS; i++) {
> > > > + if (part_get_info(desc, i, &info))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + uuid_str_to_bin(info.type_guid, part_type_guid.b,
> > > > + UUID_STR_FORMAT_GUID);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!guidcmp(&fwu_mdata_guid, &part_type_guid)) {
> > > > + ++mdata_parts;
> > > > + if (!*primary_mpart)
> > > > + *primary_mpart = i;
> > > > + else
> > > > + *secondary_mpart = i;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (mdata_parts != 2) {
> > > > + log_debug("Expect two copies of the FWU metadata instead
> > > > of %d\n",
> > > > + mdata_parts);
> > > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + ret = 0;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Can we change that a bit? There are are some assumptions in this code,
> > > e.g
> > > the user must pass the values zero'ed out. Can we instead get an array of
>
> I don't agree. If the function returns an error code, caller shall not
> use the output content.
> That is what callers of gpt_get_mdata_partitions() do in this patch,
> so returning -EINVAL if fine.
> (note that I don't mind this gets an array ref rather than 2 pointers).
Ah true. In any case I still think we should change to an array, imho it
would be much easier to read
>
> best regards,
> etienne
>
> > > 2 instead? In that case you don't care if any of the values are zero and
> > > you can just fill in the array. Something like:
> >
> > Okay, will make use of the array as you suggest.
> >
> > >
[...]
Regards
/Ilias
