On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:40:12AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > +error:
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES; i++) {
> > + frame = &timer_mem->frame[i];
> > + if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> > + acpi_unregister_irq(frame->phys_irq);
> > + if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> > + acpi_unregister_irq(frame->virt_irq);
> > + }
>
> There are three error paths, none of them reset [i,gtdt_frame],
> correct ?
Correct.
> If yes, why can't it simply be written like this ?
>
> for (; i >= 0; i--, gtdt_frame--) {
> frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
>
> /* not sure this check is actually needed */
> if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER)
> continue;
>
> if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt);
> if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt);
> }
A reverse loop of this form will work.
That requires some restructuring, and care to avoid going out of bounds
instantaneously with the gtdt_frame--, so as to not invoke nasal demons.
I've attacked this locally, and will send this out after testing. I'll
drop the new ACPI API patch.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
