On 08/16/16 at 02:26am, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Hi, > > > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Baoquan > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > index 9f0ad6e..34d45bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries_array(char *id, unsigned long table_size, > > proc[i].handler(entry, table_end)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - proc->count++; > > + proc[i].count++; > > Do we have code using acpi_subtable_proce.count? > I think the answer is yes because of: > [Patch] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries > > So why don't you put these 2 patches together into a single series? > And help to validate if there are problems in other acpi_subtable_proce.count users. Thanks for comments. I hesitated to put them into one patch or two patches when I post. Later I decided to post them in two patches because they are in two components, one is x86, the other is ACPI. And though very simple fix I worry they can't be described well in one patch log. Anyway, change related to patch 1/2 had been included in Al Stone's patchset posted earlier. So this one has to be NACKed. > > Thanks > Lv > > > break; > > } > > if (i != proc_num) > > -- > > 2.5.5 > > > > -- > > 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 -- 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
