Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:56:56 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 02:47 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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. > > > 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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |