Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Log Exceptions and Errors as warning while loading extra tables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 14-03-17 09:56, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,

On 14-03-17 09:15, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Hi, Hans

From: Hans de Goede [mailto:hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Log Exceptions and Errors as warning while loading extra tables

Hi,

On 13-03-17 10:52, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Hi, Hans

For log level issue, is this fix useful for you?
https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/121/commits/a505d3942

That fixes reloading already loaded tables, the problem I'm
getting errors about its loading a different table with identical
contents.

I will look into your suggestion to do something similar to
AcpiTbInstallStandardTable using AcpiTbCompareTables for the
SSDT tables. I will send a new patch when I can make some time
to look into this.

I just completed a prototype here:
https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/121

I guess the original "duplicate table check" couldn't cover static SSDTs.
Actually the duplicate table check should be a sanity check of table load.
And for table install, we should have a different sanity check like:
https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/121/commits/6e825cae5e5
I'm not sure if this is what you want.

This checks for having 2 table_descriptors pointing to the same table
(address in memory). But in my case there are 2 identical copies of
the table at 2 different addresses in memory, so this won't work.

After looking at this a bit myself, I think fixing this is actually
quite easy (now that you've pointed me to acpi_tb_install_standard_table()

I've come up with the attached patch to fix this. I will give this a test
spin and then submit it officially (assuming it works).

Ok the approach of doing the check during acpi_tb_install_standard_table
does not work because then acpi_gbl_verify_table_checksum is false so
we are only loading the header of the table, that and we are not supposed
to load more data / use more mem this early, which the call to
acpi_tb_acquire_table() will do for the table being compared against.

So it looks like we will need to go with some version of my patch which
does the check later when acpi_gbl_verify_table_checksum is true.

Regards,

Hans
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux