On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Al Stone ahs3@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/25/2015 05:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 05:26:40 PM Al Stone wrote:
[cut]
In particular, I'm not sure if we really need to return -EINVAL from acpi_parse_entries_array() when we find a bad MADT entry or it will be sufficient to simply go to the next entry in that case?
Thanks, Rafael
I see there being two options: (1) return -EINVAL and indicate that the tables are incorrect, or (2) print a warning (or something more aggressive?), go to the next entry, and hope for the best with the remainder of the MADT subtables. The former is consistent with past behavior, I think, and the latter seems to me a bit of a gamble. So, my vote is for (1), the current method; what are you thinking these days?
I would be for preserving the past behavior.
I'm a bit concerned that the new checks may trigger on systems where the old ones didn't, but that is a separete problem.
Thanks, Rafael