From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753957Ab2BRVup (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:50:45 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54103 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753812Ab2BRVun (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:50:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:50:33 +0100 From: Holger Macht To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Hillf Danton , Matthew Garrett , Jeff Garzik , Stephen Rothwell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy Message-ID: <20120218215031.GA9925@homac.suse.de> References: <20120217230107.GA12929@homac.suse.de> <20120218111419.GA2488@homac.suse.de> <20120218132610.GA15265@homac.suse.de> <20120218140449.GA2558@homac.suse.de> <20120218195722.GA2590@homac.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sa 18. Feb - 13:03:34, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote: > > On Sa 18. Feb - 10:46:04, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote: > > > > How about that one? > > > > > > It's more broken than that. Here's my attempt. It boots on the > > > systems with dock_station_count 0, and it boots on my laptop with > > > dock_station_count 2; but I don't actually have any docking station, > > > so it still doesn't test very much (dock is 0 after the loop). > > > > Well, there doesn't have to actually exist a physical dock station (or > > bay device) for dock_station_count to be > 0. It just tells that the > > ACPI objects are present and thus the system is capable of it. > > > > So does this function actually also break on your laptop and you're > > getting the oops there, too? > > It oopsed on the 4-year-old Fujitsu-Siemens laptop whose dock_station_count > was 0. It did not oops on the new ThinkPad laptop whose dock_station_count > is 2, but no docks were found: so the function would only have been leaking > memory on that. It should actually have successfully linked the dock to the device, if for instance you had a device in your bay. At least this is working fine with two Thinkpads I tested with. That's why I didn't encounter this problem at all before resubmitting the corresponding patch set. > If docks were found, then I suspect it could have been scribbling, but I > cannot actually check if that's true (for all I know, dock_station_count > may be always 1 bigger than the most that that double loop can discover); > but at least the loop is now made safe against scribbling. It was actually working fine multiple times, out of pure luck it seems. Regards, Holger