Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI / tables: simplify acpi_parse_entries

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Mon Sep 28 2015 - 15:46:57 EST


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 07:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 28/09/15 14:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:11:11 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/15 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 01:58:06 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>>> acpi_parse_entries passes the table end pointer to the sub-table entry
>>>>>> handler. acpi_parse_entries itself could validate the end of an entry
>>>>>> against the table end using the length in the sub-table entry.
>>>>>> This patch adds the validation of the sub-table entry end using the
>>>>>> length field.This will help to eliminate the need to pass the table end
>>>>>> to the handlers.
>>>>>> It also moves the check for zero length entry early so that execution of
>>>>>> the handler can be avoided.
>>>>>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>> As I mentioned earlier, this needs to be applied after Al's MADT changes
>>>>>> are merged. You might get simple conflicts in acpi_parse_entries.
>>>>> This needs to be rebased on top of some patches in my linux-next branch.
>>>>> It probably is better to rebase it on top of my bleeding-edge branch that
>>>>> contains the Al's patches already, though.
>>>> I don't see Al's patches in your linux-next or bleeding-edge
>>> They were there, but I've dropped them due to a 0-day testing failure.
>> Yes I guess we did see this last week, I had ask Al to fix it privately.
>> It was some discrepancy with ACPIv1.0 specification between different
>> sections that resulted in failures I saw.
>>> I think your patches depend on the Al's ones, is that correct?
>> Correct, I think it's easier if I wait for his patches.
>> Regards,
>> Sudeep
> My apologies. Was participating in family stuff all weekend
> and Linaro Connect all last week.
> This appears to be an incorrect reading of the 1.0 spec, and not
> being able to find the 1.0b version, on my part. Unfortunately,
>*spec*.pdf is not public so one has
> to guess at files names for older versions of the spec -- and I
> assumed 1.0B, the current naming practice.
> Sorry about that...the patch is pretty simple, I think. Rafael,
> which tree do you want me to base the respin on? Your bleeding-edge
> branch?

My linux-next branch should be OK for that.

I guess there will be a conflict between your patches and the Marc's
ones, but I can resolve that one I suppose.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at