From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joeyli Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: handle the acpi hotplug schedule error Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:39:33 +0800 Message-ID: <20170607153933.GY30622@linux-l9pv.suse> References: <20170607060527.23407-1-jlee@suse.com> <20170607101832.GW30622@linux-l9pv.suse> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: "Lee, Chun-Yi" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Len Brown List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:46:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:18 PM, joeyli wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:36:55AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote: > >> > Kernel should decrements the reference count of acpi device > >> > when scheduling acpi hotplug work is failed, and also evaluates > >> > _OST to notify BIOS the failure. > > > So, do you mean like this? > > Yes, see below. > > > > > - if (hotplug_event && ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_hotplug_schedule(adev, type))) > > - return; > > + if (hotplug_event) { > > > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_hotplug_schedule(adev, type))) > > + return; > > > + else > > It's redundant... > Oh~ Yes, you are right. The 'else' can be removed > > + goto err_put_device; > > ...perhaps > > if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_hotplug_schedule(adev, type))) > goto err_put_device; > return; > I think normally it should be success. So how about: if (hotplug_event) { if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_hotplug_schedule(adev, type))) return; goto err_put_device; } > > > > acpi_bus_put_acpi_device(adev); > > return; > > > > +err_put_device: > > + acpi_bus_put_acpi_device(adev); > > err: > > acpi_evaluate_ost(handle, type, ost_code, NULL); > > } Thanks a lot! Joey Lee