On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:31:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:15:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mika Westerberg
> >> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >> > +static acpi_status pcihp_evaluate_rmv(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> >> > + void *context, void **return_not_used)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long long *removable = context;
> >> > + unsigned long long value;
> >> > + acpi_status status;
> >> > +
> >> > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_RMV", NULL, &value);
> >> > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && value) {
> >>
> >> So, there is a chance the caller gets back uninitialized *context.
> >> Let's assume that is by design.
> >>
> >> > + *removable = value;
> >> > + return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> >> > + }
> >> > + return AE_OK;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >>
> >> > +static bool pcihp_is_removable(acpi_handle handle, size_t depth)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long long removable = 0;
> >> > + acpi_status status;
> >> > +
> >> > + status = pcihp_evaluate_rmv(handle, 0, &removable, NULL);
> >> > + if ((status == AE_CTRL_TERMINATE) && removable)
> >>
> >> Here you already have removable not equal zero.
> >
> > Hmm, removable is initialized to zero just few lines above... Did I miss
> > something obvious?
>
> Yes, that's correct, however, you already did this check when you call
> evaluate_rmv. Thus, second check '&& removable' is not needed.
Ah, right. Got it now :-)
I think it is better to remove the first value check from the
pcihp_evaluate_rmv() and keep the check here.
I'll fix that in the next revision as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
