On 07/01/2016 03:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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? > That's the odd thing; there is no breakage. Of any sort. But, no one relies on those values for anything at this point. I've got a couple of ideas I'm working on that are easier if it does work right, however. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- 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
