On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/01/2016 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The static function acpi_parse_entries_array() is provided an array of >>> type struct acpi_subtable_proc that has a callback function and a count. >>> The count should reflect how many times the callback has been successfully >>> called. However, the current code only increments the 0th element of the >>> array, regardless of the number of entries in the array, or which callback >>> has been invoked. The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of >>> a pointer to the beginning of the array. >> >> OK, so it would be good to say what the consequences of the problem are too. >> > > Hrm. So replace the last sentence with something like: > > The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of > a pointer to the beginning of the array, so that the count > for each element in the array in incremented by the > corresponding callback. > > That feels a little clunky but is it closer to what you were > thinking? Well, not really. The code is arguably incorrect, but is there anything that does not work as expected as a result? Any functional breakage? Any misleading messages printed? -- 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
