On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:25 -0400 Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > When cpuidle_unregister_driver() is called with a driver > other than the one that was successfully registered, do nothing. > > Previously we'd NULL-out the one that was registered. > But that required the callers to remember what this > routine already remembers. With this check, the callers > can be simplified. > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/cpuidle/driver.c | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c b/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c > index 2257004..30bcd44 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/driver.c > @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ void cpuidle_unregister_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv) > return; > > spin_lock(&cpuidle_driver_lock); > - cpuidle_curr_driver = NULL; > + if (drv == cpuidle_curr_driver) > + cpuidle_curr_driver = NULL; > spin_unlock(&cpuidle_driver_lock); > } This can only happen as a result of a coding bug, yes? If so, the kernel should go BUG() rather than secretly concealing the problem. Also (alternatively), the `drv' arg to this function is superfluous? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
