From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:38:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20121205133853.770451ca.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20121205070901.GA12123@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20121205142935.GA12119@liondog.tnic> <20121205152756.5afec12c@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121205153121.GA28556@liondog.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:47956 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751980Ab2LEVi4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:38:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121205153121.GA28556@liondog.tnic> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Alan Cox , Andreas Mohr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Shaohua , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:31:21 +0100 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:27:56PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:29:35 +0100 > > Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:09:01AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c: In function 'ispnpidacpi': > > > > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c:65:2: warning: logical 'or' of collectively > > > > exhaustive tests is always true [-Wlogical-op] > > > > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c:66:2: warning: logical 'or' of collectively > > > > exhaustive tests is always true [-Wlogical-op] > > > > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c:67:2: warning: logical 'or' of collectively > > > > exhaustive tests is always true [-Wlogical-op] > > > > > > > > > > > > That's already the second less enticing -Wlogical-op issue > > > > which was discovered by accident during less than two days > > > > No it's not. It's been reported in bugzilla. I sent patches ages ago. > > They were ignored. Coverity has had it tagged for years (and a ton more > > of them you've not noticed yet) > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/56753/match=test_alpha > > > > This isn't discovered, this is in the "If you stick your fingers in your > > ears and hum you can't hear the screaming" category. > > Hillarious! > > Andrew, would you please pick up Alan's patch? It clearly fixes an > ancient bug in the pnpacpi code. > Bjorn had a review comment which appears to remain unaddressed: : The original is definitely broken. : : I think the corrected test allows PNP IDs containing '@', which : doesn't appear legal per sec 6.1.5 of the ACPI 5.0 spec. Should this : be : : + if (!('A' <= (c) && (c) <= 'Z')) \ : : instead? Also, the original patch is missing a signed-off-by. Here's what I have queued: From: Alan Cox Subject: pnpacpi: fix incorrect TEST_ALPHA() test TEST_ALPHA() is broken and always returns 0. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: return false for '@' as well, per Bjorn] Signed-off-by: Alan Cox Cc: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Andreas Mohr Cc: Li Shaohua Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c~pnpacpi-fix-incorrect-test_alpha-test drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c~pnpacpi-fix-incorrect-test_alpha-test +++ a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static inline int __init is_exclusive_de if (!(('0' <= (c) && (c) <= '9') || ('A' <= (c) && (c) <= 'F'))) \ return 0 #define TEST_ALPHA(c) \ - if (!('@' <= (c) || (c) <= 'Z')) \ + if (!('A' <= (c) && (c) <= 'Z')) \ return 0 static int __init ispnpidacpi(const char *id) { _