Re: [buggy index field handling] [patch]

[Ducrot Bruno <ducrot-kk6yZipjEM5g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:18:47PM +0200, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
> There is a funny bug in acpi/executer/exfldio.c::acpi_ex_field_datum_io
> 
> When the field come from an indexed one, we read all the time from the
> address obj_desc->index_field.value
> Unfortunately, this is wrong, since the correct address is
> obviously &obj_desc->index_field.value + field_datum_byte_offset

Ok, that one should be OK, now.  My apologize for the first one.


--- linux-2.6.0-test5/drivers/acpi/executer/exfldio.c	2003/09/22 17:09:20	1.1
+++ linux-2.6.0-test5/drivers/acpi/executer/exfldio.c	2003/09/22 17:31:55
@@ -413,6 +413,8 @@
 
 
 	case ACPI_TYPE_LOCAL_INDEX_FIELD:
+		{
+		u32 old_addr = 0;
 
 
 		/* Ensure that the index_value is not beyond the capacity of the register */
@@ -424,9 +426,12 @@
 
 		/* Write the index value to the index_register (itself a region_field) */
 
+		old_addr = obj_desc->index_field.value;
+		obj_desc->index_field.value += field_datum_byte_offset;
 		status = acpi_ex_insert_into_field (obj_desc->index_field.index_obj,
-				 &obj_desc->index_field.value,
+				 &obj_desc->index_field.value + field_datum_byte_offset,
 				 sizeof (obj_desc->index_field.value));
+		obj_desc->index_field.value = old_address;
 		if (ACPI_FAILURE (status)) {
 			return_ACPI_STATUS (status);
 		}
@@ -443,6 +448,7 @@
 			status = acpi_ex_insert_into_field (obj_desc->index_field.data_obj,
 					  value, obj_desc->common_field.access_byte_width);
 		}
+		}
 		break;
 
 

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf