On 08/10/16 at 02:53pm, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Baoquan He <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Len Brown <[email protected]> > > Cc: Pavel Machek <[email protected]> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > --- > > 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
