[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326077272.4097.3.camel@deadeye>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:47:52 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>,
Debian kernel team <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>,
linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, debian-68k@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices
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.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists