Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi_processor earlier

From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"loongarch@lists.linux.dev" <loongarch@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Miguel Luis" <miguel.luis@oracle.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	"justin.he@arm.com" <justin.he@arm.com>,
	"jianyong.wu@arm.com" <jianyong.wu@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi_processor earlier
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:19:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240417161919.000070b4@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32aaee486f984859af713138e460075f@huawei.com>


> >   		result = -ENODEV;
> >  @@ -469,15 +483,16 @@ static void acpi_processor_remove(struct
> >  acpi_device *device)
> >   	device_release_driver(pr->dev);
> >   	acpi_unbind_one(pr->dev);
> >  
> >  -	/* Clean up. */
> >  -	per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  -	per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  -
> >   	cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >   	cpus_write_lock();
> >  
> >   	/* Remove the CPU. */
> >   	arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> >  +
> >  +	/* Clean up. */
> >  +	per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  +	per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  +  
> 
> 
> Shouldn't above change come after acpi_unmap_cpu() i.e. after next line?
> 
> 
> >   	acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
Agreed - that is more logically correct.  I'll move it for v7.

Thanks,

Jonathan