[PATCH] CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK was undocumented and not error checked

[Nick Withers]

A couple of doco typos...

On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:47 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> closes #2431.
> ---
>  cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h       |   14 ++++++++
>  doc/user/conf.t                      |   55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  testsuites/psxtests/psximfs02/init.c |    4 +-
>  3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h b/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h
> index 66c8c7e..db2bedd 100644
> --- a/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h
> +++ b/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h
> @@ -3823,5 +3823,19 @@ const rtems_libio_helper rtems_fs_init_helper =
>    #endif
>  #endif
>  
> +/*
> + * IMFS block size for in memory files (memfiles) must be a power of
> + * two between 16 and 512 inclusive.
> + */
> +#if ((CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 16) && \
> +     (CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 32) && \
> +     (CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 64) && \
> +     (CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 128) && \
> +     (CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 256) && \
> +     (CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK != 512))
> +  #error "IMFS Memfile block size must be a power of 2 between 16 and 512"
> +#endif
> +
> +
>  #endif
>  /* end of include file */
> diff --git a/doc/user/conf.t b/doc/user/conf.t
> index ec9b1f8..9905454 100644
> --- a/doc/user/conf.t
> +++ b/doc/user/conf.t
> @@ -2749,6 +2749,61 @@ options will be defined as well
>  @end itemize
>  
>  @c
> + at c === CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK ===
> + at c
> + at subsection Specify Block Size for IMFS
> +
> + at findex CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK
> +
> + at table @b
> + at item CONSTANT:
> + at code{CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK}
> +
> + at item DATA TYPE:
> +Boolean feature macro.
> +
> + at item RANGE:
> +Valid values for this configuration parameter are are a power of two (2)

There's a double "are" there.

> +between 16 and 512 inclusively.  In other words, valid values are 16,
> +32, 64, 128, 257,and 512.

"257,and" -> "256 and". Since I'm here, I'd say "inclusive" rather than
"inclusively" too, but maybe that's just me.

Cheers!
-- 
Nick Withers

Embedded Systems Programmer
Department of Nuclear Physics, Research School of Physics and Engineering
The Australian National University (CRICOS: 00120C)