[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091023153027.GA18068@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:30:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmi_check_system can generate Warnings when no DMI
table is present
* Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:03 +0200, Erwan Velu wrote:
> > Daniel Walker a écrit :
> > > [...]
> > > It's your defect, so you can still try to fix it (unless the "xen
> > > people" or someone else beats you to it.)
> > >
> > > It looks like on a normal system dmi_scan_machine() gets called very
> > > early in setup_arch() arch/x86/kernel/setup.c . A possible good fix
> > > might be to add a dmi_disable() into the dmi driver that just shuts off
> > > dmi, and run that in xen_arch_setup() in arch/x86/xen/setup.c
> > Could it make sense having this patch (I can work on it) while keeping
> > my previous patch ?
> > Does it make sense keeping the default return value I've been adding
> > when no dmi table is found ?
>
> Ingo mentioned that the returning mechanism your adding was left out
> intentionally to catch this error, so I don't think your original
> patch could be included ..
Yes. That mechanism found a real bug here.
Calling the DMI code too early (when the strings are still empty) can
cause silent failures: we wont crash but we might miss to act on DMI
quirks.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists