If this patch is correct, better to let CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED share the same code.
And do we need a comment "/* fall through */" between CPU_UP_CANCELED and CPU_DOWN_FAILED (or it is another bug, need a 'break' statement) ? At last, also better to let CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and CPU_UP_CANCELED share the same code (if need a 'break'), or share the most of code (if "fall through"). Thanks. On 08/20/2013 11:43 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > When failure occures, __padata_add_cpu() and __padata_remove_cpu() will > return -ENOMEM, which need be noticed in any cases (even in cleaning up > cases). > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.c...@asianux.com> > --- > kernel/padata.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c > index 072f4ee..6a124cd 100644 > --- a/kernel/padata.c > +++ b/kernel/padata.c > @@ -871,16 +871,20 @@ static int padata_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block > *nfb, > if (!pinst_has_cpu(pinst, cpu)) > break; > mutex_lock(&pinst->lock); > - __padata_remove_cpu(pinst, cpu); > + err = __padata_remove_cpu(pinst, cpu); > mutex_unlock(&pinst->lock); > + if (err) > + return notifier_from_errno(err); > > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED: > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN: > if (!pinst_has_cpu(pinst, cpu)) > break; > mutex_lock(&pinst->lock); > - __padata_add_cpu(pinst, cpu); > + err = __padata_add_cpu(pinst, cpu); > mutex_unlock(&pinst->lock); > + if (err) > + return notifier_from_errno(err); > } > > return NOTIFY_OK; > -- Chen Gang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
