linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] ACPI: processor: idle: raise up log level when evaluate LPI failed

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]

Message-ID: <32d9ae29-55e9-4102-afbe-f34c20a19a02@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:09:54 +0800
From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: <lenb@...nel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	<zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>, <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, <yubowen8@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] ACPI: processor: idle: raise up log level when
 evaluate LPI failed


在 2025/10/22 3:29, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 11:38 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>> According to ACPI spec, LPI package must be ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE and
>> the count of package must be greater than 4. And the count contained
>> in package needs to be equal to the value of count field in LPI package.
>> All are illegal and return failure. It is better for these verification
>> to use error level log instead of debug so as to get detailed logs directly
>> when initialization fails.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> index 22b051b94a86..5acf12a0441f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> @@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
>>          /* There must be at least 4 elements = 3 elements + 1 package */
>>          if (!lpi_data || lpi_data->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE ||
>>              lpi_data->package.count < 4) {
>> -               pr_debug("not enough elements in _LPI\n");
>> +               pr_err("not enough elements in _LPI\n");
>>                  ret = -ENODATA;
>>                  goto end;
>>          }
>> @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
>>
>>          /* Validate number of power states. */
>>          if (pkg_count < 1 || pkg_count != lpi_data->package.count - 3) {
>> -               pr_debug("count given by _LPI is not valid\n");
>> +               pr_err("count given by _LPI is not valid\n");
>>                  ret = -ENODATA;
>>                  goto end;
>>          }
>> --
> They are pr_debug() on purpose because they are not useful to anyone
> other than the people who work on _LPI implementations in firmware or
> debug firmware issues.  They do not indicate kernel functional issues
> in particular.
ok, get this purpose. Thanks.