On T, 2009-01-06 at 16:19 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Marc Jones marcj303@gmail.com wrote:
I agree it is parents before siblings but I thought it looked more like a problem with the statictree. I must not understand .next.
from http://pastebin.ca/1301081
dev_apic_0 has a .sibling = &dev_domain_0 and .next = &dev_domain_0_pci_1_0
Then later in the last device domain dev_domain_0_pci_f_2 has a .next = &dev_domain_0.
I would expect .sibling and .next to point to the &dev_domain_0 and then dev_domain_0 to have .next = &dev_domain_0_pci_1_0
Yes. I would too. It's that way because parents get defined after children. When the tree is being read, the full parent is not read (we don't get to the closing brace) until after we read all the children.
It seems the order code-wise is the expected one. Domain structure definitions appear before its devices, and so on, just the next pointers jump to the end for one of them in the pastebin example. Couldn't the .next pointers simply be pointing to the entry that is going to be printed out next as far as domain/device go?
"The rest of the geodelx fixup patch" looks quite invasive to me. Not regarding quality, but to my own local changes I had done :) Will take some digesting from the start to get things understood, merged with other changes and working order for me. But tomorrow is clean-up and submission time anyways. I will be adding a Flash device and juggle around some code to be done in appropriate phases for the interaction with VSA to be working as far as NAND Flash goes.
Mart Raudsepp