Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:48:00 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] thermal/core: Remove unneeded mutex_destroy() | From | Daniel Lezcano <> |
| |
On 19/01/2023 13:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:30 AM Daniel Lezcano > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 19/01/2023 08:41, Zhang, Rui wrote: >>> On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> If the thermal framework fails to initialize, the mutex can be used >>>> by >>>> the different functions registering a thermal zone anyway. >>> >>> Hmm, even with no governors and unregistered thermal sysfs class? >>> >>> IMO, thermal APIs for registering a thermal_zone/cooling_device should >>> yield early if thermal_init fails. >>> For other APIs that relies on a valid >>> thermal_zone_device/thermal_cooling_device pointer, nothing needs to >>> be changed. >>> >>> what do you think? >> >> I think you are right. >> >> It would be nice if we can check if the thermal class is registered and >> bail out if not. But there is no function to check that AFAICS. >> >> Alternatively we can convert the thermal class static structure to a >> pointer and set it to NULL in case of error in thermal_init() ? > > It doesn't matter if this is a NULL pointer or a static object that's > clearly marked as unused.
Without introducing another global variable, is it possible to know if the class is used or not ?
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |