Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
a tested-by.
Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the
same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it.
Also, can you clarify: does the second patch make the first patch just
an "irrelevant safety net", or are there possible callers of
topology_add_dev() that could cause problems? I'm just wondering
whether maybe the safety net ends up then possibly hiding some future
bug where we (once more) don't register a cpu and then never really
notice?
Or am I just being difficult?
Linus
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Commit ccbc60d3e19a1b6ae66ca0d89b3da02dde62088b ('topology: Provide
CPU topology in sysfs in !SMP configurations') causes a crash at boot
on a several architectures. The topology sysfs code assumes that
there is a CPU device for each online CPU whereas some architectures
that do not support SMP or cpufreq do not register any CPU devices.
Check for this before trying to use a device.
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/topology.c | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/topology.c b/drivers/base/topology.c
index ae989c5..4467c85 100644
--- a/drivers/base/topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/topology.c
@@ -147,6 +147,8 @@ static int __cpuinit topology_add_dev(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
+ if (!dev)
+ return -ENODEV;
return sysfs_create_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
}
@@ -154,7 +156,8 @@ static void __cpuinit topology_remove_dev(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
- sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
+ if (dev)
+ sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
}
static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
--
1.7.8.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
