[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130625185111.GL9294@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:51:11 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, john.ronciak@...el.com,
miles.j.penner@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] PCI: acpiphp: look _RMV method a bit deeper in the
hierarhcy
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:31:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:15:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mika Westerberg
> >> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >> > +static acpi_status pcihp_evaluate_rmv(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> >> > + void *context, void **return_not_used)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long long *removable = context;
> >> > + unsigned long long value;
> >> > + acpi_status status;
> >> > +
> >> > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_RMV", NULL, &value);
> >> > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && value) {
> >>
> >> So, there is a chance the caller gets back uninitialized *context.
> >> Let's assume that is by design.
> >>
> >> > + *removable = value;
> >> > + return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> >> > + }
> >> > + return AE_OK;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >>
> >> > +static bool pcihp_is_removable(acpi_handle handle, size_t depth)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long long removable = 0;
> >> > + acpi_status status;
> >> > +
> >> > + status = pcihp_evaluate_rmv(handle, 0, &removable, NULL);
> >> > + if ((status == AE_CTRL_TERMINATE) && removable)
> >>
> >> Here you already have removable not equal zero.
> >
> > Hmm, removable is initialized to zero just few lines above... Did I miss
> > something obvious?
>
> Yes, that's correct, however, you already did this check when you call
> evaluate_rmv. Thus, second check '&& removable' is not needed.
Ah, right. Got it now :-)
I think it is better to remove the first value check from the
pcihp_evaluate_rmv() and keep the check here.
I'll fix that in the next revision as well.
--
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