From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755097Ab2AICsL (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:48:11 -0500 Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:53091 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751129Ab2AICsJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:48:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1326077272.4097.3.camel@deadeye> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices From: Ben Hutchings To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Arch , Thorsten Glaser , Debian kernel team , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, debian-68k@lists.debian.org Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:47:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1326055714.13595.309.camel@deadeye> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-TZEdBsyi9cHotEWG7C7+" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:1f08:1539:21c:bfff:fe03:f805 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@decadent.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shadbolt.decadent.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-TZEdBsyi9cHotEWG7C7+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > 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. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. - John Lenno= n --=-TZEdBsyi9cHotEWG7C7+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUATwpVWOe/yOyVhhEJAQoSgBAApz+yrWNvQlkjXH+cQTJsguLnUl5QNUXP YPPty+K7THXk4kguZrQP/GMNkCDHzZVijj8ac6oFyLubU4e94VPk6MaQL7hOxBqY 4nSr1PNgvpm0weod3G9dXPpUG7wOzaxGxwQhEjbKxe//DexiC+Raj+uuvVBNagYo IDWDSeLY85oP0G3AJQaY5Qjwk5odhpnqOG1/ygQ/jI4PdAH9pMQ4aaS5zY6648xD kiOsvxsDlIdga6gv2zq0CK8j9Tl2eMp4/JYWwm8RNPa1bUtyPOwSmJRVJSG3QT5F ImVFUFfTlaCIJlpNJNbuikxPijiybV6Hn4xqMJsBkmM6C+lJKzRn5TeYs+/Oh2nZ s2F+sP3yv04gTAKhQbiZaksGWRlQhm60jYpuAxRo3qAwixADO61ALqnfnqt68KSP vXPS4G60BjRGVJZ9vaOeWF+OsU8jdeUe28nSGt8xqwQLstAhM0XMcf47deXriVRe mQQIGau6Js3y9FyKQLjvj3gCnRZTFX3QLDxeb95CEKSr9toVURw6nbV0ZN6HHgfd yePsI2ENnK4q9zvg5zUbvRaXhP/O2GxEBq9y0yG1edYbbJo8Nqc+wdVUdeaOUmBT 6sfIYadYcZt+6XwnMFk+deIfn4p3bTZbs5aD+GFUgsi+c96leBMQgL7/Q51HJEpq uK030Alsb0I= =/7Dh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-TZEdBsyi9cHotEWG7C7+--