Hi, 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, > http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/*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. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
