On 08/22/2013 02:05 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > 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. > > Thanks, I will send patch v2 for it. -- Chen Gang -- 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
