Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: error handling fixes

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 05:24:34PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:05:54 -0400,
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> 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.

It's a bug no matter how you look at it... I just lessen the impact.  :)

If someone wants to provide a better fix, let's see the patch...

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/