| Message ID | 20160809003006.GF16660@x1.redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
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 -- 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
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 -- 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
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++; break; } if (i != proc_num)
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(-)