Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:31:06 +0000 | From | Conor Dooley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] cacheinfo: Correctly handle new acpi_get_cache_info() prototype |
| |
Hey!
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:34:46PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote: > commit bd500361a937 ("ACPI: PPTT: Update acpi_find_last_cache_level() > to acpi_get_cache_info()") > updates the function acpi_get_cache_info(). > > If CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, acpi_get_cache_info() doesn't > update its *levels and *split_levels parameters and returns 0. > This can lead to a faulty behaviour. > > Make acpi_get_cache_info() return an error code if CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT > is not defined. Initialize levels and split_levels before passing > their address to acpi_get_cache_info(). > > Also, in init_cache_level():
Hmm...
> - commit e75d18cecbb3 ("arm64: cacheinfo: Fix incorrect > assignment of signed error value to unsigned fw_level") > checks the fw_level value in init_cache_level() in case > the value is negative. Remove this check as the error code > is not returned through fw_level anymore. > - if no PPTT is present or CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, > it is still possible to use the cache information from clidr_el1. > Instead of aborting if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error > code, just continue.
To be honest, these feel like entirely separate things that should be in different patches. You've got: - Dan's smatch fixes - a redundant check being removed - a behaviour change for if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
How about Link: to the LKP/Dan's report? Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y86iruJPuwNN7rZw@kili/
I did a quick check but didn't don't see the LKP report...
Also a Fixes: tag too, no?
Thanks, Conor. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |