[PATCH] CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK was undocumented and not error checked

[Joel Sherrill]

Thank you.

I have made these changes. Did the explanation make enough sense
where you would know what it did? :)

On 10/20/2015 5:41 PM, Nick Withers wrote:
> 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!
>

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985