lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/8] cpuidle: add cpuidle_unregister_driver() error check
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:25 -0400 Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>
> When cpuidle_unregister_driver() is called with a driver
> other than the one that was successfully registered, do nothing.
>
> Previously we'd NULL-out the one that was registered.
> But that required the callers to remember what this
> routine already remembers. With this check, the callers
> can be simplified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/driver.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c b/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c
> index 2257004..30bcd44 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ void cpuidle_unregister_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&cpuidle_driver_lock);
> - cpuidle_curr_driver = NULL;
> + if (drv == cpuidle_curr_driver)
> + cpuidle_curr_driver = NULL;
> spin_unlock(&cpuidle_driver_lock);
> }

This can only happen as a result of a coding bug, yes? If so, the
kernel should go BUG() rather than secretly concealing the problem.

Also (alternatively), the `drv' arg to this function is superfluous?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-27 05:17    [W:0.129 / U:6.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site