Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/35] x86: intel_epb: Don't rely on link order

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 9/14/23 02:37, James Morse wrote:
intel_epb_init() is called as a subsys_initcall() to register cpuhp
callbacks. The callbacks make use of get_cpu_device() which will return
NULL unless register_cpu() has been called. register_cpu() is called
from topology_init(), which is also a subsys_initcall().

This is fragile. Moving the register_cpu() to a different
subsys_initcall()  leads to a NULL derefernce during boot.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
                                     s/derefernce/dereference

Reported by ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --codespell


Make intel_epb_init() a late_initcall(), user-space can't provide a
policy before this point anyway.

Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
---
subsys_initcall_sync() would be an option, but moving the register_cpu()
calls into ACPI also means adding a safety net for CPUs that are online
but not described properly by firmware. This lives in subsys_initcall_sync().
---
  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
index e4c3ba91321c..f18d35fe27a9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
@@ -237,4 +237,4 @@ static __init int intel_epb_init(void)
  	cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_X86_INTEL_EPB_ONLINE);
  	return ret;
  }
-subsys_initcall(intel_epb_init);
+late_initcall(intel_epb_init);

Thanks,
Gavin




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux