Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752309AbZJWPan (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:30:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752129AbZJWPan (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:30:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50476 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752099AbZJWPam (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:30:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:30:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Cc: Erwan Velu , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmi_check_system can generate Warnings when no DMI table is present Message-ID: <20091023153027.GA18068@elte.hu> References: <4AE178AF.3010804@gmail.com> <20091023110323.GC10071@elte.hu> <4AE19867.5070705@gmail.com> <1256302066.10493.74.camel@desktop> <4AE1C5C6.7000103@gmail.com> <1256310576.10493.78.camel@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1256310576.10493.78.camel@desktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1390 Lines: 34 * Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:03 +0200, Erwan Velu wrote: > > Daniel Walker a ?crit : > > > [...] > > > It's your defect, so you can still try to fix it (unless the "xen > > > people" or someone else beats you to it.) > > > > > > It looks like on a normal system dmi_scan_machine() gets called very > > > early in setup_arch() arch/x86/kernel/setup.c . A possible good fix > > > might be to add a dmi_disable() into the dmi driver that just shuts off > > > dmi, and run that in xen_arch_setup() in arch/x86/xen/setup.c > > Could it make sense having this patch (I can work on it) while keeping > > my previous patch ? > > Does it make sense keeping the default return value I've been adding > > when no dmi table is found ? > > Ingo mentioned that the returning mechanism your adding was left out > intentionally to catch this error, so I don't think your original > patch could be included .. Yes. That mechanism found a real bug here. Calling the DMI code too early (when the strings are still empty) can cause silent failures: we wont crash but we might miss to act on DMI quirks. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/