On 10/09/2015 01:26 AM, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Please ignore this. > The fix is against the caller. > > Thanks and best regards > -Lv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Devel [mailto:devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zheng, Lv >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:02 AM >> To: Prarit Bhargava; Moore, Robert; devel@xxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wysocki, Rafael J >> Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] ACPICA: AcpiGetSleepTypeData: Failure to find \_Sx should not result in a loud warning [v2] >> >> Why don't you fix this in the invoker side? >> For example: >> If (acpi_get_handle()) >> acpi_evaluate_object() That seems like a sloppy workaround an actual bug in ACPICA. >> So that the AE_NOT_FOUND warning can still be kept for the real troubles? The code is warning 100% of the time on something that is optional. >> There are really scenarios that such warning is useful for catching bugs. >> What scenario is possible where this causes a problem? Issuing an error on something that is optional is not a good idea. P. -- 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
