Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:25:12 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc5 |
| |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Bruno Prémont wrote: > > The following change is guilty on my machine (though I could not find > the matching commit on git.kernel.org :( )
It's commit 0794469da3f7b2093575cbdfc1108308dd3641ce: "ACPI: struct device - replace bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name()", and yes, it seems totally buggy. It replaced a test for "dev->bus" with "dev_name(dev)", which makes no sense.
> Reverting the change below makes the error go away.
Does this smaller patch just make it go away?
That said, that whole function looks potentially buggy. Len - why is it safe to do "list_for_each_safe()" when you drop the acpi_device_lock in the middle? The "next" pointer that we look up may go away while the lock is dropped, I think.
Linus
--- drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c index 64e591b..4dbc227 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c @@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ acpi_system_wakeup_device_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *offset) dev->wakeup.state.enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled"); if (ldev) seq_printf(seq, "%s:%s", - dev_name(ldev) ? ldev->bus->name : "no-bus", + ldev->bus ? ldev->bus->name : "no-bus", dev_name(ldev)); seq_printf(seq, "\n"); put_device(ldev); -- 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/
|  |