> > Wouldn't it be a bit more clear if we clamped buffer_size before > > setting buffer_end? E.g. like this: > > > > if (buffer_size == 0) > > return; > > > > if (dell_wmi_interface_version == 0 && > > buffer_size > buffer_entry[0] + 1) > > buffer_size = buffer_entry[0] + 1; > > > > buffer_end = buffer_entry + buffer_size; > > Before return adds correct cleanup part and code will be same as my > original patch. > > So if more people think that your code is cleaner I'm OK with replacing > it. Both solutions are fine and I realize I'm a bit late to the party as you posted the original patch almost 3 weeks ago, so I don't want to delay it any longer. I think it's just a matter of deciding whether to enforce the buffer size limit using buffer_size or buffer_end. As the first option involves a little bit less writing, I thought I'd suggest it. > > One more minor nit: you should probably decide between "first" and > > "one" as the phrase "only first one event" (found both in the commit > > message and in the code comment) sounds incorrect to me. > > Feel free to correct commit message, I'm not very good in english... > > It should mean something like this... in buffer received by bios can be > more events. That while loop iterate over events. And this my patch on > machines with wmi version 0 will process only *one* event. And that > event is *first* in buffer. Don't worry, I understood your intentions from the commit message, so I don't think it's worth posting a v3 only to correct minor stylistic errors. -- Best regards, Michał Kępień -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
