> + /* ACPI 3.0 added the extended flags support. If bit 0 > + in the extended flags is zero, we're supposed to simply > + ignore the entry -- a backwards incompatible change! */ > + if (size > 20 && !(buf.ext_flags & 1)) > + continue; At the risk of rushing to the defense of the ACPI spec... This does not look like a backwards incompatible change to me. In ACPI 2.0, size of 20 is always returned, and it would be a Linux bug if we examined the undefined values after byte 19. In ACPI 3.0, byte 20 is now defined. So if the BIOS returns a size >= 21, we are permitted to examine byte 20. So I agree with the test above, but I do not agree with the comment. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
