Bill Holler wrote: > Line 325: the comma in the condition clause looks suspicious. > Should "i < obj->Package.Count, cnt > 0" instead be > "i < obj->Package.Count && cnt > 0" ?
BTW. Can anybody think of any reason that lint shouldn't have caught my syntax mistake here? I can't think of any reason you'd ever want to use that syntax in the conditional clause? Mark > > Bill > > > Mark Haywood wrote: >> Hi, >> >> An OpenSolaris user reported a problem with SpeedStep support on his >> laptop. His problem was that OpenSolaris was not finding the >> supported P-states. After a few email exchanges, we found that his >> _PSS table had a strangely defined set of P-states (see the attached >> stbl.dsl). There are 10 P-states returned by the _PSS, but the first >> 9 are duplicates. So, really there are only 2 uniquely defined >> P-states. The current P-state parsing code in Solaris doesn't allow >> for duplicates in the middle of the table (it does handle them at the >> end of the table since we've seen that case before). Though I >> consider this to be a questionable _PSS defintion, I think we can >> support it easy enough by ignoring consecutive duplicates altogether. >> >> I placed a webrev of the fix at: >> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mhaywood/6716347/ >> >> And I welcome any comments. >> >> Thanks! >> Mark >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tesla-dev mailing list >> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev >
