On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:06:47 -0400 > roel kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > max_state is unsigned, so the test is invalid. > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I think max_state can only become -1, no? then probably a different > > patch is required. > > I may not be able to respond for a few weeks. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/intel_menlow.c b/drivers/misc/intel_menlow.c > > index e00a275..980171d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/misc/intel_menlow.c > > +++ b/drivers/misc/intel_menlow.c > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int memory_set_cur_bandwidth(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev, > > if (memory_get_int_max_bandwidth(cdev, &max_state)) > > return -EFAULT; > > > > - if (max_state < 0 || state > max_state) > > + if (max_state == -1 || state > max_state) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > arg_list.count = 1; > > > > hm, maybe. > > This can only happen if acpi_evaluate_integer(MEMORY_GET_BANDWIDTH) > returned no-error and a bandwidth of zero (I assume). > > Is this a special case which the driver really wanted to handle? If > so, why is "0" the only bad value which we're checking for? Or is this > all some big brainfart which should be removed? Sujith, Please send me a patch to intel_menlo.c that documents the legal return values from GTHS. If 0 is illegal, that is fine, but the upstream driver doesn't check for it properl (I like Rui's 9/11 patch better than the above, so andrew, you can drop this patch in any case) thanks, -Len ps. Sujith, shouldn't there be a MAINTAINERS for this driver with your name on it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
