On Monday, November 24, 2014 04:01:24 PM Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
On 24.11.2014 16:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 09:34:24 AM Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
On 24.11.2014 02:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, October 17, 2014 09:36:59 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Tomasz Nowicki tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org
It is very useful to traverse all available table entries without max number of expected entries type. Current acpi_parse_entries() implementation gives that feature but it does not count those entries, it returns 0 instead, so fix it to count matched and successfully entries and return it.
Hmm. I guess that the goal is for count to only be incremented when the condition is satisfied entirely, while without the patch it may be incremented even if that isn't the case.
That would be our goal if patch would look like:
&& (!max_entries || count++ < max_entries))
&& (!max_entries && count++ < max_entries)) {but then we can not walk through all available entries (with max_entries==0)
No, that's not what I was trying to say. :-)
I'm not sure how that is related to the above paragraph, however.
Previous changelog is not clear, let me rewrite it:
acpi_parse_entries() allows to traverse all available table entries (aka subtables) by passing max_entries parameter equal to 0. But for that use case acpi_parse_entries() does not inform caller how many entries were matched and for how many entries handler was run against. That patch is going to fix it.
Do I understand correctly that count is only ever incremented by current code if max_entries is different from 0?
Right. Currently "count" is incremented only if max_entries > 0.
So can you say that in the changelog, please?
Something like:
"acpi_parse_entries() allows to traverse all available table entries (aka subtables) by passing max_entries parameter equal to 0, but since its count variable is only incremented if max_entries is not 0, the function always returns 0 for max_entries equal to 0. It would be more useful if it returned the number of entries matched instead, so make it increment count in that case too".