Messages in this thread | | | From | Bjorn Helgaas <> | Subject | Re: [ACPI] RFC: ACPI table overflow handling | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:24:06 -0700 |
| |
On Sunday 11 January 2004 7:30 am, Jes Sorensen wrote: > +++ linux-2.6.0-test11-ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/acpi.c Sun Jan 11 05:15:22 2004 > - if (acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_IOSAPIC, acpi_parse_iosapic) < 1) > + if (acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_IOSAPIC, acpi_parse_iosapic, 256) < 1)
The "256" looks like it's based on the "iosapic_lists[256]" definition. We probably should introduce a #define for those cases (sorry, I should have noticed this the first time).
> +++ linux-2.6.0-test11-ia64/arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/boot.c Sun Jan 11 05:31:58 2004 > + result = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_INT_SRC_OVR, acpi_parse_int_src_ovr, NR_IRQ_VECTORS); >... > + result = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_NMI_SRC, acpi_parse_nmi_src, > + NO_IRQ_VECTORS);
Is NO_IRQ_VECTORS a typo for NR_IRQ_VECTORS?
> +++ linux-2.6.0-test11-ia64/drivers/acpi/numa.c Thu Jan 8 02:49:24 2004 > acpi_table_parse_srat ( > enum acpi_srat_entry_id id, > - acpi_madt_entry_handler handler) > + acpi_madt_entry_handler handler, > + int max_entries)
Should "max_entries" be unsigned? I notice you used unsigned types in the implementation, i.e., "count".
Bjorn
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |