On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Verma, Vishal L
<vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:28 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > /**
>> > + * acpi_evaluate_fit: Evaluate _FIT method to get an updated NFIT
>> > + * @handle: ACPI device handle
>> > + * @buf: buffer for the updated NFIT
>> > + *
>> > + * Evaluate device's _FIT method if present to get an updated NFIT
>> > + */
>> > +acpi_status acpi_evaluate_fit(acpi_handle handle, struct
>> > acpi_buffer **buf)
>> > +{
>> > + acpi_status status;
>> > + struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL
>> > };
>> > +
>> > + status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "_FIT", NULL,
>> > &buffer);
>> > +
>> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> > + return status;
>> > +
>> > + *buf = &buffer;
>>
>> Umm, unless I'm missing something, you're returning a stack address.
>
> Good point, you're right. Dan/Rafael, is it OK to just remove this
> patch entirely, and call acpi_evaluate_object directly from nfit.c? The
> current way did feel a bit kludgey to me any way because I was
> allocating a buffer here (above), but trying to free it in the caller,
> which seems very ugly..
Open coding a call to acpi_evaluate_object() sounds good to me.
--
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
