On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:16:36PM -0500, Rob Lee wrote:
> Sascha,
>
> >> +int __init imx_cpuidle_init(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
> >> +{
> >> + struct cpuidle_device *dev;
> >> + int cpu_id, ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!drv || drv->state_count > CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX) {
> >
> > Please don't check for !drv here. When someone calls this function with
> > a NULL pointer he should get a nive stack trace allowing him to figure
> > out what went wrong.
> >
>
> Ok, I will change this in v3. Given your statement, my understanding
> is that I should avoid adding checks to make sure a valid driver
> object was given as the stack trace information is all the handling
> that is needed. If there is any further logic needed in that rule,
> could you elaborate so that I don't make this mistake in the future,
> or so that I don't add a check on a driver object in a case that I
> should?
Here we have the case that only a Kernel developer will add a call to
this function. For a kernel developer a stack trace is more useful
than a pr_err. Of course this is different when not testing for a NULL
pointer causes subtle bugs in unrelated code.
> >
> > You should only unregister the cpuidle devices you successfully
> > registered. Unregistering not yet registered cpuidle devices probably
> > has unwanted side effects.
> >
>
> I did not add in this handling because the cpuidle_unregister_device()
> call already has a "registered" check so extra handling seemed
> unnecessary. But if you still think it is needed just let me know.
>
It's ok then. I didn't check cpuidle_unregister_device.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
