Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] powercap/drivers/dtpm: Add API for dynamic thermal power management | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Date | Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:19:35 +0000 |
| |
On 12/2/20 12:37 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I realized small issue when I went through this new mutex code > (which is safer IMHO). > > On 12/1/20 7:28 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > [snip] > >> +int dtpm_register(const char *name, struct dtpm *dtpm, struct dtpm >> *parent) >> +{ >> + struct powercap_zone *pcz; >> + >> + if (!pct) >> + return -EAGAIN; >> + >> + if (root && !parent) >> + return -EBUSY; >> + >> + if (!root && parent) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (parent && parent->ops) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + > > Maybe it worth to add a check of dtpm pointer here, just to play safe? > > if (!dtpm) > return -EINVAL; > > The dtpm->ops might explode when we don't capture this miss-usage during > reviews of future drivers/shim layers. What do you think? > > >> + if (dtpm->ops && !(dtpm->ops->set_power_uw && >> + dtpm->ops->get_power_uw && >> + dtpm->ops->release)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + > > I am going to stress test the whole series with hotplug today > and add review for patch 4/4. >
I have tested with a hotplug stress and looks OK with the mutex. You can add again the tag:
Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Regards, Lukasz
| |