On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:57:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I didn't consider that it is even possible but yes, in that case we
> > should not return true here.
>
> Well, that why did you check if the list is not empty at all? :-)
>
> It is possible if someone sets the ACPI companion before calling acpi_bind_one()
> (some pieces of code do that). It may not be relevant here, but it won't hurt
> to be on the safe side.
Agreed.
> > >
> > > > + mutex_lock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
> > > > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
> > > > + const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
> > > > +
> > > > + node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
> > > > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
> > > > + if (node->dev != dev)
> > > > + ret = false;
> > >
> > > And that may be simply
> > >
> > > ret = node->dev == dev;
> >
> > OK.
>
> So what about the following modified version?
Looks good to me, thanks :-)
--
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
