lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Fix ordering of product_uuid
在 2015/4/16 17:30, Jean Delvare 写道:
> Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 16:46 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit :
>> On 2015/4/16 15:09, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 14:22 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit :
>>>> The basic idea is right, but you ignore the case dmi_walk_early may
>>>> fail, though looks impossible when bootup.
>>>>
>>>> Better to add below for robust.
>>>>
>>>> @@ -521,6 +521,6 @@ static int __init dmi_present(const u8 *
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> + dmi_ver = 0;
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>> What is the value of this? dmi_ver will never be accessed after this
>>> point anyway, as far as I can see.
>> Same as above, future commit may not realize you bring this faulty when
>> they want to use dmi_ver.
> Why do you think this is "faulty"? The value in dmi_ver is correct
> whether dmi_walk_early() succeeded or not. There's no rationale for
> resetting dmi_ver on error and not dmi_num, dmi_len and dmi_base. Note
> that dmi_smbios3_present() doesn't reset any of these either. These
> values are all correct.
>
> If other modules need to check whether DMI was successfully initialized,
> they must check dmi_available rather than any of the variables above
> (which are all static anyway.)

You are right, dmi_available should be used here. Sorry for noise

zduan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 03:41    [W:0.061 / U:5.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site