lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: fix incorrect counts returned by acpi_parse_entries_array()
From
Date
On 07/01/2016 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/01/2016 03:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/01/2016 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The static function acpi_parse_entries_array() is provided an array of
>>>>>> type struct acpi_subtable_proc that has a callback function and a count.
>>>>>> The count should reflect how many times the callback has been successfully
>>>>>> called. However, the current code only increments the 0th element of the
>>>>>> array, regardless of the number of entries in the array, or which callback
>>>>>> has been invoked. The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of
>>>>>> a pointer to the beginning of the array.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so it would be good to say what the consequences of the problem are too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hrm. So replace the last sentence with something like:
>>>>
>>>> The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of
>>>> a pointer to the beginning of the array, so that the count
>>>> for each element in the array in incremented by the
>>>> corresponding callback.
>>>>
>>>> That feels a little clunky but is it closer to what you were
>>>> thinking?
>>>
>>> Well, not really.
>>>
>>> The code is arguably incorrect, but is there anything that does not
>>> work as expected as a result? Any functional breakage? Any
>>> misleading messages printed?
>>>
>>
>> That's the odd thing; there is no breakage. Of any sort.
>>
>> But, no one relies on those values for anything at this point. I've got a
>> couple of ideas I'm working on that are easier if it does work right, however.
>
> That's information that should go into the changelog too.
>
> "There are no functional consequences of the issue, but fixing it is
> necessary for future work."
>
> Or similar.
>

Will do in v2.

--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@redhat.com
-----------------------------------

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-02 01:21    [W:0.099 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site