[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120503100409.GA6971@otc-wbsnb-06>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 13:04:09 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: "R, Durgadoss" <durgadoss.r@...el.com>
Cc: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: coretemp: use list instead of fixed
size array for temp data
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:29:43AM +0000, R, Durgadoss wrote:
> > @@ -707,14 +787,12 @@ static void __cpuinit put_core_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > pdata = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >
> > - indx = TO_ATTR_NO(cpu);
> > -
> > - /* The core id is too big, just return */
> > - if (indx > MAX_CORE_DATA - 1)
> > - return;
> > + attr_no = TO_ATTR_NO(cpu);
> >
> > - if (pdata->core_data[indx] && pdata->core_data[indx]->cpu == cpu)
> > - coretemp_remove_core(pdata, &pdev->dev, indx);
> > + tdata = get_temp_data(pdata, attr_no);
> > + if (tdata->cpu == cpu)
>
> The get_temp_data can return a NULL. So, you might want to do,
> if (tdata && tdata->cpu == cpu) to avoid a potential NULL ptr crash.
Good catch, thanks.
> In general, why are we using spin_locks instead of mutex_locks,
> for list manipulations .. ?
I don't think it matters here. Contention is low and nobody sleeps, but
okay, I'll change it to mutex.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists