In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org --- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index bec717f..dd64f23 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c @@ -579,6 +579,10 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id); + if (!dev) { + result = -ENODEV; + goto err_clear_processor; + } if (sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "sysdev")) { result = -EFAULT; goto err_clear_processor;
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Thanks, Rafael
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index bec717f..dd64f23 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c @@ -579,6 +579,10 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
if (!dev) {result = -ENODEV;goto err_clear_processor;} if (sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "sysdev")) { result = -EFAULT; goto err_clear_processor;
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
Thanks Hanjun
Thanks, Rafael
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index bec717f..dd64f23 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c @@ -579,6 +579,10 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
if (!dev) {result = -ENODEV;goto err_clear_processor;} if (sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "sysdev")) { result = -EFAULT; goto err_clear_processor;
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;) Martin
Thanks Hanjun
Thanks, Rafael
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index bec717f..dd64f23 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c @@ -579,6 +579,10 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
if (!dev) {result = -ENODEV;goto err_clear_processor;} if (sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "sysdev")) { result = -EFAULT; goto err_clear_processor;-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;)
Hi Rafeal,
What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion?
Thanks Hanjun
Martin
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:29:54 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;)
Hi Rafeal,
What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion?
Well, this is kind of hard to say. We generally don't apply patches to -stable that don't have mainline counterparts.
Greg, I wonder what your opinion is?
Rafael
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:29:54 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;)
Hi Rafeal,
What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion?
Well, this is kind of hard to say. We generally don't apply patches to -stable that don't have mainline counterparts.
Greg, I wonder what your opinion is?
We do not apply patches to -stable that are not in Linus's tree, unless there is no problem in Linus's tree due to a major rewrite of the code, and it has been confirmed that the same problem isn't there.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 2013-5-31 6:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:29:54 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote: > In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, > although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed. > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org
This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;)
Hi Rafeal,
What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion?
Well, this is kind of hard to say. We generally don't apply patches to -stable that don't have mainline counterparts.
Greg, I wonder what your opinion is?
We do not apply patches to -stable that are not in Linus's tree, unless there is no problem in Linus's tree due to a major rewrite of the code, and it has been confirmed that the same problem isn't there.
Hi Rafael,
I found that the problem is still there in your acpi-hotplug tree, sorry for I didn't noticed early. I made a patch for this again, I hope it will make sense to you.
The patch is attached, based on your acpi-hotplug tree.
Thanks Hanjun
On Friday, May 31, 2013 11:58:49 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-31 6:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:29:54 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 19:07, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-5-29 7:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:44:26 PM Hanjun Guo wrote: >> In acpi_processor_add(), get_cpu_device() will return NULL sometimes, >> although the chances are small, I think it should be fixed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org > > This patch isn't necessary any more after the changes queued up for 3.11 > in the acpi-hotplug branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
Ok, I noticed your patch set, just drop my patch.
But shouldn't this go to stable at least? I checked linux-3.9.4 and it applies fine. Whether this is relevant for other stable series I will leave up to somebody else. ;)
Hi Rafeal,
What's your opinion on Martin's suggestion?
Well, this is kind of hard to say. We generally don't apply patches to -stable that don't have mainline counterparts.
Greg, I wonder what your opinion is?
We do not apply patches to -stable that are not in Linus's tree, unless there is no problem in Linus's tree due to a major rewrite of the code, and it has been confirmed that the same problem isn't there.
Hi Rafael,
I found that the problem is still there in your acpi-hotplug tree, sorry for I didn't noticed early. I made a patch for this again, I hope it will make sense to you.
The patch is attached, based on your acpi-hotplug tree.
OK, thanks!
Rafael
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Hanjun Guo -
Martin Mokrejs -
Rafael J. Wysocki