Hi, > From: Prarit Bhargava [mailto:prarit@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:30 PM > > On 10/09/2015 01:26 AM, Zheng, Lv wrote: > > Please ignore this. > > The fix is against the caller. As I said, the previous email is sent due to lack of confirmation. So you needn't reply the previous message. Thanks -Lv > > > > Thanks and best regards > > -Lv > > > >> From: Devel [mailto:devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zheng, Lv > >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:02 AM > >> > >> 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
