From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753285AbcHPIVi (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 04:21:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56070 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753209AbcHPIVf (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 04:21:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:21:31 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: "Zheng, Lv" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing Message-ID: <20160816082131.GD26981@x1.redhat.com> References: <1470697311-1292-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com> <20160809003006.GF16660@x1.redhat.com> <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E883BC0E417@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E883BC0E417@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/16/16 at 02:26am, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Hi, > > > From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Baoquan > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > index 9f0ad6e..34d45bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > > @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries_array(char *id, unsigned long table_size, > > proc[i].handler(entry, table_end)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - proc->count++; > > + proc[i].count++; > > Do we have code using acpi_subtable_proce.count? > I think the answer is yes because of: > [Patch] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries > > So why don't you put these 2 patches together into a single series? > And help to validate if there are problems in other acpi_subtable_proce.count users. Thanks for comments. I hesitated to put them into one patch or two patches when I post. Later I decided to post them in two patches because they are in two components, one is x86, the other is ACPI. And though very simple fix I worry they can't be described well in one patch log. Anyway, change related to patch 1/2 had been included in Al Stone's patchset posted earlier. So this one has to be NACKed. > > Thanks > Lv > > > break; > > } > > if (i != proc_num) > > -- > > 2.5.5 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html