On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:40:12AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
+error:
- for (i = 0; i < ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES; i++) {
frame = &timer_mem->frame[i];if (frame->phys_irq > 0)acpi_unregister_irq(frame->phys_irq);if (frame->virt_irq > 0)acpi_unregister_irq(frame->virt_irq);- }
There are three error paths, none of them reset [i,gtdt_frame], correct ?
Correct.
If yes, why can't it simply be written like this ?
for (; i >= 0; i--, gtdt_frame--) { frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
/* not sure this check is actually needed */ if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER) continue;
if (frame->phys_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt); if (frame->virt_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt); }
A reverse loop of this form will work.
That requires some restructuring, and care to avoid going out of bounds instantaneously with the gtdt_frame--, so as to not invoke nasal demons.
I've attacked this locally, and will send this out after testing. I'll drop the new ACPI API patch.
Thanks, Mark.