Hi Rafael, Thank you for review. On 02/13/2016 02:08 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:43:34PM +0300, Aleksey Makarov wrote: >>> The function acpi_table_parse() has some problems: >>> 1 It can be called only from __init code >>> 2 It does not pass any data to the handler >>> 3 It just throws out the value returned from the handler >>> >>> These issues are addressed in this patch >> >> Why not just fix acpi_table_parse(), like you have, and not add a new >> API call with a "2" at the end of it. That seems crazy to try to >> maintain that level of apis. >> >> But I'm not the acpi maintainer(s), so it's their call... > > The ACPI maintainer agrees. I see. How would you prefer it to be fixed: 1. Change the signature/implementation of acpi_table_parse(). CON: It would require extensive changes through all the kernel, which I am not sure I will be able to test (but these changes are just adding an unused arg to the handler + checking that the return value is consistent) OR 2. Have a local implementation of the function like acpi_table_parse2() CON: A bit of code duplication. Thank you Aleksey Makarov -- 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
