Yes, we will see.

Certainly, in this case it was helpful to have the warning up front that there was no return value.


quoted text
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@kernel.org]
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:27 PM
>To: Moore, Robert
>Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; James Bottomley; Jesse Barnes; linux-
>acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Subject: Prevent acpi_run_osc from using NULL objects
>(was: Re: Oops in ACPI with git latest)
>
>
>
>> We've just recently deployed a new module that validates the inputs and
>outputs
>> for the predefined ACPI methods (Those that start with underscore).
>>
>> That is the source of these messages:
>>
>> > > ACPI Warning (nspredef-0252): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Parameter count
>mismatch - ASL declared 5, expected 4 [20080926]
>> > > ACPI Error (nspredef-0163): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Missing expected return
>value [20080926]
>>
>> For the initial version of this module, we only output messages when the
>inputs and/or
>> outputs don't match the requirements of the ACPI specification.
>>
>> We can change this to returning exceptions in the future.
>
>I expect we're going to have a bunch of false positives with this one,
>and indeed may need to even pare the warnings back to only
>when CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG, or acpi=strict or something.
>
>-Len
--
unsubscribe notice
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/