[PATCH 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[PATCH 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[Baoquan He]

The current code always increases the count in the 1st element of
array proc[].

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/acpi/tables.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

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++;
 			break;
 		}
 		if (i != proc_num)
-- 
2.5.5

[PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

[Baoquan He]

It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
---
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
index 90d84c3..2b25d3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries(void)
 			return ret;
 		}
 
-		x2count = madt_proc[0].count;
-		count = madt_proc[1].count;
+		count = madt_proc[0].count;
+		x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
 	}
 	if (!count && !x2count) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No LAPIC entries present\n");
-- 
2.5.5

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

[Ingo Molnar]

* Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 90d84c3..2b25d3f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries(void)
>  			return ret;
>  		}
>  
> -		x2count = madt_proc[0].count;
> -		count = madt_proc[1].count;
> +		count = madt_proc[0].count;
> +		x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
>  	}
>  	if (!count && !x2count) {
>  		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No LAPIC entries present\n");

Why does this bug have no effect?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

[Baoquan He]

On 08/10/16 at 02:53pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > index 90d84c3..2b25d3f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > @@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries(void)
> >  			return ret;
> >  		}
> >  
> > -		x2count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > -		count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > +		count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > +		x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
> >  	}
> >  	if (!count && !x2count) {
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I mean here the value checking won't be impacted by the wrong
assignment.

> >  		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No LAPIC entries present\n");
> 
> Why does this bug have no effect?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

[Ingo Molnar]

* Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/16 at 02:53pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > index 90d84c3..2b25d3f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > @@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries(void)
> > >  			return ret;
> > >  		}
> > >  
> > > -		x2count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > > -		count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > > +		count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > > +		x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > >  	}
> > >  	if (!count && !x2count) {
>           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I mean here the value checking won't be impacted by the wrong
> assignment.

Indeed!

Mind putting that into the changelog? Something like:

"By pure accident the bug makes no functional difference, because the only 
 expression where we are using these values is (!count && !x2count), in which
 the variables are interchangeable, but it makes sense to fix the bug 
 nevertheless."

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

[Baoquan He]

On 08/11/16 at 10:46am, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > -		count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > > > +		count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > > > +		x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  	if (!count && !x2count) {
> >           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I mean here the value checking won't be impacted by the wrong
> > assignment.
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> Mind putting that into the changelog? Something like:
> 
> "By pure accident the bug makes no functional difference, because the only 
>  expression where we are using these values is (!count && !x2count), in which
>  the variables are interchangeable, but it makes sense to fix the bug 
>  nevertheless."

Sure, this is much clearer. Will use this and repost. Thanks a lot, will
try to do each post using patch log like this.

Thanks
Baoquan

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[kbuild test robot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]

Hi Baoquan,

[auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc1 next-20160808]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]

url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Baoquan-He/ACPI-tables-Correct-the-wrong-count-increasing/20160809-070345
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next
config: x86_64-randconfig-x002-201632 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-9) 6.1.1 20160705
reproduce:
        # save the attached .config to linux build tree
        make ARCH=x86_64 

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   drivers/acpi/tables.c: In function 'acpi_parse_entries_array':
>> drivers/acpi/tables.c:284:11: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct acpi_subtable_proc')
       proc[i]->count++;
              ^~

vim +284 drivers/acpi/tables.c

   278				if (entry->type != proc[i].id)
   279					continue;
   280				if (!proc[i].handler ||
   281				     proc[i].handler(entry, table_end))
   282					return -EINVAL;
   283	
 > 284				proc[i]->count++;
   285				break;
   286			}
   287			if (i != proc_num)

---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation

[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 25801 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[Baoquan He]

Sorry, I tested in another system, but forget updating code on my
laptop.

Will reply with a v2 post.

Sorry again about this mistake.

[PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[Baoquan He]

The current code always increases the count in the 1st element of
array proc[].

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
---

v1->v2:
    V1 is a wrong post because I didn't update the tested code to my
    local laptop. Repost with a correct v2.

 drivers/acpi/tables.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

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++;
 			break;
 		}
 		if (i != proc_num)
-- 
2.5.5

RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[Zheng, Lv]

Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Baoquan
> He
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing
> 
> The current code always increases the count in the 1st element of
> array proc[].
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> 
> v1->v2:
>     V1 is a wrong post because I didn't update the tested code to my
>     local laptop. Repost with a correct v2.
> 
>  drivers/acpi/tables.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> 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
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

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

[Baoquan He]

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