On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:12:46PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote: > > > 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 I've cleaned up that bit. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
