On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Vadim Lomovtsev <Vadim.Lomovtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:45:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:59:19 PM CET Vadim Lomovtsev wrote: >> > Hi guys, >> > >> > While running LTP tests I've faced kernel crash caused by ltp_acpi test case. >> > I have ACPI support enabled in kernel but kernel is boot with FDT having ACPI >> > disabled. The ltp_acpi test case application is built along with ltp_acpi_cmds >> > module to run ACPI tests. >> > >> > So my question is - should we update acpica implementation at kernel side by >> > adding 'acpi_disabled' variable checking to the 'acpi_get_devices' function (see >> > patch next to this email, maybe not a good approach) or this should be fixed at LTP >> > side so the ltp_acpi_cmds should be updated in order to check if acpi is enabled >> > before running tests ? >> >> There should be a check preventing acpi_get_devices() from being called in the >> acpi_disabled case. > > In my case I have to update ltp_acpi code then. RIght. >> >> acpi_disabled is Linux-specific and the ACPICA code isn't, so the code calling >> ACPICA functions should check acpi_disabled when necessary. > > Agree. However getting back to LTP tests it looks like such calls were implemented > intentionally without checking of aspi_disabled value. > > Don't we have any self-testing stuff in acpica to prevent such scenarious ? ACPICA doesn't know anything about acpi_disabled as I said already. I would argue that testing unsupported use cases in LTP is not very useful. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
