在 2015/4/16 17:30, Jean Delvare 写道:
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.)
You are right, dmi_available should be used here. Sorry for noise
zduan
--
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/
