From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753933Ab1LACGe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:06:34 -0500
Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:56916 "EHLO relay.sgi.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753286Ab1LACGd (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:06:33 -0500
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:31 -0600
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode
Message-ID: <20111201020631.GA30097@sgi.com>
References: <20111108191149.GA7236@sgi.com>
 <20111122160802.e99d6218.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20111130152959.GA19205@sgi.com>
 <20111130161131.31cdccff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111130161131.31cdccff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:11:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:29:59 -0600
> Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > +static ssize_t sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu(struct sys_device *dev,
> > +						struct sysdev_attribute *attr,
> > +						const char *buf, size_t size)
> > +{
> > +	struct sysdev_ext_attribute *ea = SYSDEV_TO_EXT_ATTR(attr);
> > +	unsigned int new;
> > +	int rv;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> > +	/* nohz mode not supported */
> > +	if (tick_nohz_enabled)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +	rv = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new);
> > +	if (rv)
> > +		return rv;
> > +
> > +	if (new >= NR_CPUS || !cpu_online(new))
> > +		return -ERANGE;
> > +
> > +	*(unsigned int *)(ea->var) = new;
> > +	return size;
> > +}
> 
> checkpatch tells us:
> 
> WARNING: usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc

I think a check against num_possible_cpus() should be OK.

> 
> I think the check can just be removed?  Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
> will return false?

A value > NR_CPUS and < MAX_INT caused a panic in sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu,
presumably from the cpu_online() check.  The check against NR_CPUS avoided
the panic.