Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 16:46 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit : > On 2015/4/16 15:09, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 14:22 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit : > >> The basic idea is right, but you ignore the case dmi_walk_early may > >> fail, though looks impossible when bootup. > >> > >> Better to add below for robust. > >> > >> @@ -521,6 +521,6 @@ static int __init dmi_present(const u8 * > >> > >> return 0; > >> } > >> } > >> + dmi_ver = 0; > >> return 1; > >> } > >> > > What is the value of this? dmi_ver will never be accessed after this > > point anyway, as far as I can see. > Same as above, future commit may not realize you bring this faulty when > they want to use dmi_ver.
Why do you think this is "faulty"? The value in dmi_ver is correct whether dmi_walk_early() succeeded or not. There's no rationale for resetting dmi_ver on error and not dmi_num, dmi_len and dmi_base. Note that dmi_smbios3_present() doesn't reset any of these either. These values are all correct. If other modules need to check whether DMI was successfully initialized, they must check dmi_available rather than any of the variables above (which are all static anyway.) -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
