On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:24:25 +1100
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:43:38 +1100
> > Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The only places where things might care is arch bootup code, but
> >>the cpu interface is such that the arch code is expected to _hide_
> >>any weird details from these generic interfaces.
> >>
> >
> > Please see i386 patch. it contains BUG fix.
> > cpu_msrs[i].coutners are allocated by for_each_online_cpu().
> > and free it by for_each_possible_cpus() without no pointer check.
> >
>
> Well that's another problem then, such a fix should not be sent in
> this patchset, but as a separate patch.
>
Sorry. and It wasn't real problem as Yoshifuji said.
I'll send fix patch later.
> > I think this kind of confusion will be seen again in future.
>
> I'm sure that renaming for_each_cpu would not prevent that either.
>
But maintainers can check easily whether online or possible should be,
when they received a patch which includes for_each_cpu().
-- Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
