[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061005081705.GA6920@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:17:05 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: error handling fixes
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 05:24:34PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:05:54 -0400,
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
>
> > static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> > @@ -112,17 +110,18 @@ static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callba
> > {
> > unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> > struct sys_device *sys_dev;
> > + int rc = 0;
> >
> > sys_dev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu);
> > switch (action) {
> > case CPU_ONLINE:
> > - topology_add_dev(sys_dev);
> > + rc = topology_add_dev(sys_dev);
> > break;
> > case CPU_DEAD:
> > topology_remove_dev(sys_dev);
> > break;
> > }
> > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > + return rc ? NOTIFY_BAD : NOTIFY_OK;
> > }
>
> Wouldn't that also require that _cpu_up checked the return code when
> doing CPU_ONLINE notification (and clean up on error)?
After all code that gets a CPU_ONLINE notification is not supposed to fail.
For allocating resources while bringing up a cpu CPU_UP_PREPARE is supposed
to be used. That one is allowed to fail.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists