Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete 
test-amd64-i386-xl"):
> Does reverting just the change to erst_check_table() fix the regression on
> the affected test boxes? What about the similar-looking boot failure that
> you see, Jeremy?

Indeed, reverting xen/drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c, ie the change to
erst_check_table, seems to fix it.  That is,

  23736:31683aa4bfb3 "acpi: Add support for old and new bios erst, ..."
   +
  23742:50ddc200a60c "fix regression from c/s 23735:537918f518ee"

fails.  That plus the diff below boots happily.

Ian.

diff --git a/xen/drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c b/xen/drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c
index e012cd3..eb666a6 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c
@@ -715,13 +715,7 @@ int erst_clear(u64 record_id)
 
 static int __init erst_check_table(struct acpi_table_erst *erst_tab)
 {
-       /*
-        * Some old BIOSes include the ACPI standard header in the ERST header
-        * length; new BIOSes do not. Our check allows for both methods.
-        */
-       if ((erst_tab->header_length !=
-           (sizeof(struct acpi_table_erst) - sizeof(erst_tab->header)))
-           && (erst_tab->header_length != sizeof(struct acpi_table_erst)))
+       if (erst_tab->header_length != sizeof(struct acpi_table_erst))
                return -EINVAL;
        if (erst_tab->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_table_erst))
                return -EINVAL;

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel