Hi Lorenzo,
On 11/27/2018 09:01 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
lengths. We should remove this restriction to
Hi Lorenzo,
On 11/27/2018 09:01 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
lengths. We should remove this restriction to
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:36AM +, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> > it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> > lengths. We should remove this
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:36AM +, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> > it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> > lengths. We should remove this
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
> it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
> lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
> if the table length changes. Future code
The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
if the table length changes. Future code which might depend on
additional fields should be written to validate
The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because
it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known
lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems
if the table length changes. Future code which might depend on
additional fields should be written to validate
12 matches
Mail list logo
