Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
a tested-by.
Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the
same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it.
Also, can you clarify: does the second patch make the first patch just
an "irrelevant safety net", or are there possible callers of
topology_add_dev() that could cause problems? I'm just wondering
whether maybe the safety net ends up then possibly hiding some future
bug where we (once more) don't register a cpu and then never really
notice?
Or am I just being difficult?
Linus
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> Commit ccbc60d3e19a1b6ae66ca0d89b3da02dde62088b ('topology: Provide
> CPU topology in sysfs in !SMP configurations') causes a crash at boot
> on a several architectures. The topology sysfs code assumes that
> there is a CPU device for each online CPU whereas some architectures
> that do not support SMP or cpufreq do not register any CPU devices.
> Check for this before trying to use a device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
> ---
> drivers/base/topology.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/topology.c b/drivers/base/topology.c
> index ae989c5..4467c85 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/topology.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,8 @@ static int __cpuinit topology_add_dev(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>
> + if (!dev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> return sysfs_create_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
> }
>
> @@ -154,7 +156,8 @@ static void __cpuinit topology_remove_dev(unsigned int
> cpu)
> {
> struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>
> - sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
> + if (dev)
> + sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &topology_attr_group);
> }
>
> static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> --
> 1.7.8.2
>
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/ca+55afwwnjppvy++vgr6p3s47yjdywv3sglzzvctijp6deu...@mail.gmail.com
