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