On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We should return -EINVAL if get_cpu_device() fails.
> >
> > Fixes: 158c998ea44b ("ACPI / CPPC: add sysfs support to compute delivered performance")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > index d0d0504..e0ea8f5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > @@ -784,8 +784,10 @@ int acpi_cppc_processor_probe(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >
> > /* Add per logical CPU nodes for reading its feedback counters. */
> > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
> > - if (!cpu_dev)
> > + if (!cpu_dev) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
>
> ret is initialized here AFAICS.
>
> Do you that its value is not the right one?
I'm looking at linux-next. It's set to zero but we presumably want to
return an error code.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
