On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:27:16PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 08/22/2013 01:11 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:44:31AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > >> > >> If this patch is correct, better to let CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED > >> share the same code. > >> > >> And do we need a comment "/* fall through */" between CPU_UP_CANCELED > >> and CPU_DOWN_FAILED (or it is another bug, need a 'break' statement) ? > >> > >> At last, also better to let CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and CPU_UP_CANCELED share > >> the same code (if need a 'break'), or share the most of code (if "fall > >> through"). > >> > > > > CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED can share the code. Same is true for > > CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and CPU_UP_CANCELED. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Thank you too. > > And need I send another patch for it ? > > Or just make by yourself (and better to mark me as Reported-by). :-) > You found the problem, feel free to send a patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
