On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/25/2015 05:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 05:26:40 PM Al Stone wrote: [cut] >> In particular, I'm not sure if we really need to return >> -EINVAL from acpi_parse_entries_array() when we find a bad MADT entry or it >> will be sufficient to simply go to the next entry in that case? >> >> Thanks, >> Rafael > > I see there being two options: (1) return -EINVAL and indicate that the tables > are incorrect, or (2) print a warning (or something more aggressive?), go to > the next entry, and hope for the best with the remainder of the MADT subtables. > The former is consistent with past behavior, I think, and the latter seems to > me a bit of a gamble. So, my vote is for (1), the current method; what are you > thinking these days? I would be for preserving the past behavior. I'm a bit concerned that the new checks may trigger on systems where the old ones didn't, but that is a separete problem. 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
