Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-72680-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:19:44 +0200 (EET)
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
cc: corentin.chary@gmail.com, luke@ljones.dev, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] platform/x86: wmi: Check if event data is not
 NULL
In-Reply-To: <dcb7c031-b920-4774-a1a9-fed8813390d0@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <954e9d5e-4800-aba9-4678-44584baaea05@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240219115919.16526-1-W_Armin@gmx.de> <20240219115919.16526-3-W_Armin@gmx.de> <dcb7c031-b920-4774-a1a9-fed8813390d0@gmx.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Armin Wolf wrote:

> Am 19.02.24 um 12:59 schrieb Armin Wolf:
> 
> > WMI event drivers which do not have no_notify_data set expect
> > that each WMI event contains valid data. Evaluating _WED however
> > might return no data, which can cause issues with such drivers.
> > 
> > Fix this by validating that evaluating _WED did return data.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >   drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
> > index 8fb90b726f50..d0fe8153f803 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
> > @@ -1210,6 +1210,7 @@ static void wmi_notify_driver(struct wmi_block
> > *wblock)
> >   {
> >   	struct wmi_driver *driver = drv_to_wdrv(wblock->dev.dev.driver);
> >   	struct acpi_buffer data = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> > +	union acpi_object *obj = NULL;
> >   	acpi_status status;
> > 
> >   	if (!driver->no_notify_data) {
> > @@ -1218,12 +1219,18 @@ static void wmi_notify_driver(struct wmi_block
> > *wblock)
> >   			dev_warn(&wblock->dev.dev, "Failed to get event
> > data\n");
> >   			return;
> >   		}
> > +
> > +		obj = data.pointer;
> > +		if (!obj) {
> > +			dev_warn(&wblock->dev.dev, "Event contains not event
> > data\n");
> 
> I just noticed that this should have been "Event contains no event data\n".
> Should i send
> another patch?

Hi Armin,

As I was doing some history manipulation anyway as is, I tweaked it 
directly in the history. While doing the conflict resolution because of 
that small change I realized the wording got corrected in the latter patch 
anyway so it was quite harmless but it's now correct in both commits in 
review-ilpo branch.

-- 
 i.