[coreboot] [commit] r5286 - ...
stepan at coresystems.de
Thu Mar 25 23:14:16 CET 2010
On 3/25/10 11:07 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
>> I changed one as an example now...
>> I guess we could optimize to not copy the header twice, but the header
>> is really small, so i didn't care to make the code uglier.
> I agree.
>> @@ -273,8 +273,10 @@
>> dsdt = (acpi_header_t *) current;
>> - current += AmlCode.length;
>> - memcpy((void *) dsdt, &AmlCode, AmlCode.length);
>> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, sizeof(acpi_header_t));
>> + int len = dsdt->length;
>> + current += len;
>> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, len);
> Why not:
>> + current += dstd->length;
>> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, dsdt->length);
> I don't think the extra variable adds anything.
Ah, I thought in terms of "it's overwriting memory while it's using it".
Was I too careful? I think so.
More information about the coreboot