Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1463349 > unrolled thread

RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com> - 2016-08-16 04:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> - 2016-08-16 10:30 +0200

#1463349 — RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1463537

On 08/16/16 at 02:26am, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Baoquan
> > 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 for comments. I hesitated to put them into one patch or two
patches when I post. Later I decided to post them in two patches because
they are in two components, one is x86, the other is ACPI. And though
very simple fix I worry they can't be described well in one patch log.

Anyway, change related to patch 1/2 had been included in Al Stone's
patchset posted earlier. So this one has to be NACKed.

> 
> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web