On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 11:14:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Dan Carpenter
> <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > We should return -EINVAL if get_cpu_device() fails.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: 158c998ea44b ("ACPI / CPPC: add sysfs support to compute delivered performance")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> >> > index d0d0504..e0ea8f5 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> >> > @@ -784,8 +784,10 @@ int acpi_cppc_processor_probe(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> >
> >> > /* Add per logical CPU nodes for reading its feedback counters. */
> >> > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
> >> > - if (!cpu_dev)
> >> > + if (!cpu_dev) {
> >> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> ret is initialized here AFAICS.
> >>
> >> Do you that its value is not the right one?
> >
> > I'm looking at linux-next. It's set to zero but we presumably want to
> > return an error code.
>
> OK
>
> It was slightly unclear what the bug was.
Applied now.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
