Thread (13 messages) flat view 13 messages, 5 authors, 2012-01-09

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

From: Ben Hutchings <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-09 02:57:10
Also in: linux-m68k, lkml

On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 02:47 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
a tested-by.

Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the
same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it.
Indeed.
quoted
Also, can you clarify: does the second patch make the first patch just
an "irrelevant safety net", or are there possible callers of
topology_add_dev() that could cause problems? I'm just wondering
whether maybe the safety net ends up then possibly hiding some future
bug where we (once more) don't register a cpu and then never really
notice?
[...]

driver_init() doesn't check that cpu_dev_init() - or any of the other
functions it calls - is successful.  So in theory at least we could boot
and still have no CPU devices after the first patch.
I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
patch.  So the first patch is an extra defence against that.  (Though we
could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
                                                               - John Lennon

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help