On 12/2/20 12:37 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I realized small issue when I went through this new mutex code
(which is safer IMHO).
On 12/1/20 7:28 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[snip]
+int dtpm_register(const char *name, struct dtpm *dtpm, struct dtpm
*parent)
+{
+ struct powercap_zone *pcz;
+
+ if (!pct)
+ return -EAGAIN;
+
+ if (root && !parent)
+ return -EBUSY;
+
+ if (!root && parent)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (parent && parent->ops)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
Maybe it worth to add a check of dtpm pointer here, just to play safe?
if (!dtpm)
return -EINVAL;
The dtpm->ops might explode when we don't capture this miss-usage during
reviews of future drivers/shim layers. What do you think?
+ if (dtpm->ops && !(dtpm->ops->set_power_uw &&
+ dtpm->ops->get_power_uw &&
+ dtpm->ops->release))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
I am going to stress test the whole series with hotplug today
and add review for patch 4/4.
I have tested with a hotplug stress and looks OK with the mutex.
You can add again the tag:
Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
Regards,
Lukasz
