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 <[email protected]>
---
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;
--
1.7.1
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 <[email protected]>
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;
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
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 <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
>>
>> 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 [email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> 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 <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> 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
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
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 <[email protected]>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.