lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing
Date
Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Baoquan
> He
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing
>
> The current code always increases the count in the 1st element of
> array proc[].
>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>
> v1->v2:
> V1 is a wrong post because I didn't update the tested code to my
> local laptop. Repost with a correct v2.
>
> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> index 9f0ad6e..34d45bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries_array(char *id, unsigned long table_size,
> proc[i].handler(entry, table_end))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - proc->count++;
> + proc[i].count++;

Do we have code using acpi_subtable_proce.count?
I think the answer is yes because of:
[Patch] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

So why don't you put these 2 patches together into a single series?
And help to validate if there are problems in other acpi_subtable_proce.count users.

Thanks
Lv

> break;
> }
> if (i != proc_num)
> --
> 2.5.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.179 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site