On Friday, October 09, 2015 10:56:26 AM Dan Williams wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
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
