[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices
    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 Hutchings
    Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
    - John Lennon
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-09 03:59    [W:0.021 / U:4.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site