On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 02:47 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: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.Indeed.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?[...] driver_init() doesn't check that cpu_dev_init() - or any of the other functions it calls - is successful. So in theory at least we could boot and still have no CPU devices after the first patch.
I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
patch. So the first patch is an extra defence against that. (Though we
could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
