* Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/10/16 at 02:53pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It won't impact the result, we still should fix the code bug.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <r...@rjwysocki.net>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <len.br...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com>
> > > Cc: x...@kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > index 90d84c3..2b25d3f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > > @@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ static int __init
> > > acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries(void)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - x2count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > > - count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > > + count = madt_proc[0].count;
> > > + x2count = madt_proc[1].count;
> > > }
> > > if (!count && !x2count) {
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I mean here the value checking won't be impacted by the wrong
> assignment.
Indeed!
Mind putting that into the changelog? Something like:
"By pure accident the bug makes no functional difference, because the only
expression where we are using these values is (!count && !x2count), in which
the variables are interchangeable, but it makes sense to fix the bug
nevertheless."
Thanks,
Ingo
