linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI: platform: Ignore SMB0001 only when it has resources

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:44:34 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Michael Brunner <michael.brunner@...tron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI: platform: Ignore SMB0001 only when it has
 resources

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:15:19AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 04:43:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 8:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:53:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > BTW, this doesn't need to increment the count even.  It could just
> > terminate the walk on the first valid resource found and tell the
> > caller to return true in that case.
> 
> Indeed, thank you for the hint!

Actually it's doesn't matter if we count them or not, we still must use the
context of the call to set up a flag or whatever. With the current code in mind
I prefer to count resources and compare that to be non-zero. This will help to
read and understand code better.

That said, I will go with (*counter)++;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko