[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B178DD9.7040502@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:07:21 +0800
From: Danny Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: reboot_fixup_32.c add missing pci_dev_put
On 12/03/2009 01:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin<hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2009 02:09 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pci_get_device increments reference count to the found pci device,
>>>> that should be decremented using pci_dev_put.
>>>
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot_fixups_32.c
>>>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ void mach_reboot_fixups(void)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> cur->reboot_fixup(dev);
>>>> + pci_dev_put(dev);
>>>
>>> Does this matter in practice? We are about to reboot. (but if it's
>>> cleaner to do it like this or if there's some real bug fixed by this
>>> then please spell it out in the changelog.)
>>>
>>
>> Even if it doesn't actually matter, doing things cleanly makes it
>> easier to handle failure scenarios, possibly that are discovered in
>> the future.
>
> certainly - but it would be nice to know whether there's any other
> reason for this but cleanliness/consistency.
Just for consistency:-) pci_get_device will increase the ref count of
found device,
then we should use pci_dev_put to decrease the ref count although we're
going to reset soon.
I should point out this in my changelog, sorry for the unclear changelog.
>
> Ingo
>
--
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