Hi, > From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@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 <b...@redhat.com> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> > Cc: Len Brown <l...@kernel.org> > Cc: linux-a...@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 majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
