From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932087AbcGAWip (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:38:45 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:36141 "EHLO mail-io0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752392AbcGAWio (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:38:44 -0400 Reply-To: ahs3@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: fix incorrect counts returned by acpi_parse_entries_array() References: <1467408081-7418-1-git-send-email-ahs3@redhat.com> <1467408081-7418-2-git-send-email-ahs3@redhat.com> <719ba3ec-4a05-6ddc-3fbc-8b6d8eab9807@redhat.com> <343f1fce-2699-2449-2965-7f00fd96ed94@redhat.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown From: Al Stone Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-ID: <13b0f0eb-a027-a439-a967-08ee188c9d96@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:38:42 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/01/2016 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> On 07/01/2016 03:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Al Stone wrote: >>>> On 07/01/2016 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Al Stone wrote: >>>>>> The static function acpi_parse_entries_array() is provided an array of >>>>>> type struct acpi_subtable_proc that has a callback function and a count. >>>>>> The count should reflect how many times the callback has been successfully >>>>>> called. However, the current code only increments the 0th element of the >>>>>> array, regardless of the number of entries in the array, or which callback >>>>>> has been invoked. The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of >>>>>> a pointer to the beginning of the array. >>>>> >>>>> OK, so it would be good to say what the consequences of the problem are too. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hrm. So replace the last sentence with something like: >>>> >>>> The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of >>>> a pointer to the beginning of the array, so that the count >>>> for each element in the array in incremented by the >>>> corresponding callback. >>>> >>>> That feels a little clunky but is it closer to what you were >>>> thinking? >>> >>> Well, not really. >>> >>> The code is arguably incorrect, but is there anything that does not >>> work as expected as a result? Any functional breakage? Any >>> misleading messages printed? >>> >> >> That's the odd thing; there is no breakage. Of any sort. >> >> But, no one relies on those values for anything at this point. I've got a >> couple of ideas I'm working on that are easier if it does work right, however. > > That's information that should go into the changelog too. > > "There are no functional consequences of the issue, but fixing it is > necessary for future work." > > Or similar. > Will do in v2. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com -----------------------------------