On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
> a tested-by.
>
> Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the
> same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it.
Indeed.
> Also, can you clarify: does the second patch make the first patch just
> an "irrelevant safety net", or are there possible callers of
> topology_add_dev() that could cause problems? I'm just wondering
> whether maybe the safety net ends up then possibly hiding some future
> bug where we (once more) don't register a cpu and then never really
> notice?
[...]
driver_init() doesn't check that cpu_dev_init() - or any of the other
functions it calls - is successful. So in theory at least we could boot
and still have no CPU devices after the first patch.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
