On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:44:59PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/26/2016 10:04 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> (trimming)
> >>+ pmu = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pmu_types), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>+ if (!pmu) {
> >>+ pr_warn("Unable to allocate pmu_types\n");
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * continue to count cpus for any pmu_types
> >>+ * already allocated, but don't allocate any
> >>+ * more pmu_types. This avoids undercounting.
> >>+ */
> >>+ alloc_failure = true;
> >
> >Why not just fail probe and return an error? What is the benefit of
> >having some of the PMUs available?
>
> AFAIC, there isn't a good reason for penalizing PMU's which we can get
> working if a subset of the system PMUs can't be created. But this is per PMU
> type, so with current systems the kzalloc will be called a max of 2 times
> (there is the potential of a 3rd time, due to some other error handling, but
> that doesn't change the argument much). AKA, this doesn't result in "partial
> registration" of a PMU.
... but this will look mighty confusing to userspace, where things will
appear to "half-work", if for some reason the machine makes it that far
at all.
I think we should stick with the KISS approach and just fail the probe
as Punit is suggesting.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
