On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 05:24:34PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:05:54 -0400,
> Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> > @@ -112,17 +110,18 @@ static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callba
> > {
> > unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> > struct sys_device *sys_dev;
> > + int rc = 0;
> >
> > sys_dev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu);
> > switch (action) {
> > case CPU_ONLINE:
> > - topology_add_dev(sys_dev);
> > + rc = topology_add_dev(sys_dev);
> > break;
> > case CPU_DEAD:
> > topology_remove_dev(sys_dev);
> > break;
> > }
> > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > + return rc ? NOTIFY_BAD : NOTIFY_OK;
> > }
>
> Wouldn't that also require that _cpu_up checked the return code when
> doing CPU_ONLINE notification (and clean up on error)?
After all code that gets a CPU_ONLINE notification is not supposed to fail.
For allocating resources while bringing up a cpu CPU_UP_PREPARE is supposed
to be used. That one is allowed to fail.
-
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]
