From: Holger Macht <holger@homac.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:30:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120221223025.GA12989@homac.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F441998.5080600@garzik.org>
On Tue 21. Feb - 17:24:24, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 02/18/2012 02:57 PM, 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?
> >
> >>I have no idea if what goes on in the loop is correct, but it looks
> >>to me as if (as predicted) there's further breakage, that it would
> >>have been writing beyond the end of what it allocated if I did have
> >>a docking station.
> >>
> >>Hugh
> >>
> >>[PATCH] dock: fix bootup oops and other dock_link breakage
> >>
> >>dock_link_device() and dock_unlink_device() should bail out early
> >>to avoid oops on zero-length kmalloc() when dock_station_count is 0.
> >>
> >>But isn't there an off-by-one in that kmalloc() length anyway?
> >>An extra NULL appended at the end suggests so.
> >>
> >>Rework the ordering with gotos on failure to fix several issues.
> >>
> >>And presumably dock_unlink_device() should be presenting the same
> >>interface as dock_link_device(), with NULL returned when none found.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>
> >
> >Fine with me.
>
> So, just to be clear, the preferred patch is Hugh's, and I should
> drop your earlier proposed fix found in this thread?
Correct.
> And what about that warning?
You mean the fix for the compile error when compiling with
CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n? Here it is again:
[PATCH] acpi: Fix compiler error when setting CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n
When compiling with CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n,
is_registered_hotplug_dock_device() needs to be defined
Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <holger@homac.de>
---
include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
index 3c4e381..3319574 100644
--- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
+++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
@@ -155,6 +155,10 @@ static inline int register_hotplug_dock_device(acpi_handle handle,
static inline void unregister_hotplug_dock_device(acpi_handle handle)
{
}
+static inline int is_registered_hotplug_dock_device(const struct acpi_dock_ops *ops)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
static inline struct device **dock_link_device(acpi_handle handle)
{
return NULL;
--
1.7.7
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-21 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-17 21:46 linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 22:42 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 23:01 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 23:49 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 11:14 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:05 ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 13:26 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:37 ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 14:04 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 14:35 ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 18:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 19:57 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 21:03 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 21:50 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-21 22:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-02-21 22:30 ` Holger Macht [this message]
2012-02-18 7:52 ` Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120221223025.GA12989@homac.suse.de \
--to=holger@homac.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=jgarzik@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox