[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200515072608.GA1361563@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 09:26:08 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] kernel/cpu_pm: Fix uninitted local in cpu_pm
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 07:32:53PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:50 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > cpu_pm_notify() is basically a wrapper of notifier_call_chain().
> > notifier_call_chain() doesn't initialize *nr_calls to 0 before it
> > starts incrementing it--presumably it's up to the callers to do this.
> >
> > Unfortunately the callers of cpu_pm_notify() don't init *nr_calls.
> > This potentially means you could get too many or two few calls to
> > CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED or CPU_CLUSTER_PM_ENTER_FAILED depending on the
> > luck of the stack.
> >
> > Let's fix this.
> >
> > Fixes: ab10023e0088 ("cpu_pm: Add cpu power management notifiers")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > This seems to be an ownerless file. I'm hoping this patch can just go
> > through the Qualcomm tree. It would be nice if we could get an Ack
> > from Rafael or Greg KH though.
>
> Greg / Rafael: any thoughts on this patch? Care to give it an Ack so
> it could go through the Qualcomm tree?
>
> Andrew: I think you are the adopter or orphan patches, usually. If
> nobody else will take this patch, will you consider taking it into
> your tree? It should be a super straightforward bugfix. I'm happy to
> re-post it CCing you if need be.
Now reviewed, nice catch.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists