From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Slaby Subject: DMI year "00" + ACPI [was: DMI: fix dmi_get_year year parsing] Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:12:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4A559851.5030302@gmail.com> References: <1246998990-9594-1-git-send-email-jirislaby@gmail.com> <4A5440BA.6070409@marco.de> <4A5442AD.1080402@gmail.com> <4A5444BD.1090905@marco.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com ([209.85.218.225]:55325 "EHLO mail-bw0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757398AbZGIHMX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2009 03:12:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A5444BD.1090905@marco.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthias Pfaller Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 07/08/2009 09:03 AM, Matthias Pfaller wrote: > Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 07/08/2009 08:46 AM, Matthias Pfaller wrote: >>> Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> Don't guess a year number base. Use 10 instead, since year may >>>> be 2-digit starting with 0, so that we would end up in base equal >>>> to 8. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby >>>> Reported-by: Matthias Pfaller >>>> --- >>>> drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> index 6071078..8fe0f6e 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ int dmi_get_year(int field) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> s += 1; >>>> - year = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 0); >>>> + year = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 10); >>>> if (year && year < 100) { /* 2-digit year */ >>>> year += 1900; >>>> if (year < 1996) /* no dates < spec 1.0 */ >>> I just noticed, that this is not enough, because this will still fail >>> for xxx/xx/00. I suggest the following patch: >> >> Actually the patch below is not correct. Standard says consider xx/xx/yy >> as 19yy, not 20yy. >> >> BTW. the patch above is not useful, reporting 1908 and 1909 as a year is >> almost the same as 1900. > > Sorry, I don't understand. Nevermind, you're right. Both patches are OK, however we might hit a regression with 00/00/00 entries so that acpi gets unintentionally armed now for them (ACPI checks year == 0). I don't know if it's worth it. Any ideas? >>> --- drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c.bak Wed Jul 8 02:42:04 2009 >>> +++ drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c Wed Jul 8 02:42:17 2009 >>> @@ -360,12 +360,15 @@ >>> return 0; >>> >>> s += 1; >>> - year = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 0); >>> - if (year && year < 100) { /* 2-digit year */ >>> - year += 1900; >>> - if (year < 1996) /* no dates < spec 1.0 */ >>> - year += 100; >>> + if (s[0] == '0' && s[1] == '0' && s[2] == '\0') { >>> + year = 2000; >>> + } else { >>> + year = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 10); >>> + if (year && year < 100) { /* 2-digit year */ >>> + year += 1900; >>> + if (year < 1996) /* no dates < spec >>> 1.0 */ >>> + year += 100; >>> + } >>> } >>> - >>> return year; >>> }