lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:53:45 -0800 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...64.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com Subject: Re: WARN... Device 'cpu1' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must be fixed. when doing 'xl vcpu-set <guest_id> 1' On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:22:46AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:06, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:06:01PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > >> Is anybody else hitting this with ACPI CPU hot-unplug? Or do I have > >> the privilige of being the first? Oh, I hadn't done a full bisection > >> but v3.2 does not have this. > > > > Kay, this is a mess. > > > > This cpu system device is is interconnected with the different arches > > and their cpu-specific structures. Some arches have a static array, > > some allocate a huge structure (struct arch_cpu * NUM_CPUS), and others > > try to do the right thing with DECLARE_PER_CPU() but don't quite get it > > right, making that a static array per cpu. > > > > To unwind all of this, is much beyond 3.3 material, as I'm sure I'll get > > it wrong, and have a bunch of non-x86-64 build problems along the way. > > > > Any objection to me just doing the "hack" of the empty release function > > at the moment to get rid of this warning, and then clean it all up > > properly for 3.4? > > No problem at all. > > It would be nice if we get all that to the usual model some day, but I > can totally see that CPU devices try to deal with statically allocated > per-cpu memory. It seems fine, as long as they know what they are > doing. > > Just silencing the driver-core warning here sounds fine to me. Ok, I'll do that tomorrow and send a patch out and then start working on making all of this dynamic, as it really should be. thanks, greg k-h -- 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