All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Rob Lee <rob.lee@linaro.org>
Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	amit.kucheria@linaro.org, jj@chaosbits.net,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, shawn.guo@linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:21:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120502202101.GA16535@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMXH7KGLHD8uimSnf8=0t15F7KcFiPuL=3bebY309MbaA75USA@mail.gmail.com>

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 |

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:21:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120502202101.GA16535@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMXH7KGLHD8uimSnf8=0t15F7KcFiPuL=3bebY309MbaA75USA@mail.gmail.com>

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 |

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-02 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-02  2:12 [PATCH v2 0/3] Add imx cpuidle Robert Lee
2012-05-02  2:12 ` Robert Lee
2012-05-02  2:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality Robert Lee
2012-05-02  2:12   ` Robert Lee
2012-05-02  3:13   ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02  3:13     ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02 13:59     ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 13:59       ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 14:07       ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02 14:07         ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02 14:09         ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 14:09           ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02  7:27   ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02  7:27     ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02 19:16     ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 19:16       ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 20:21       ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2012-05-02 20:21         ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02  2:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: imx: Add imx5 cpuidle driver Robert Lee
2012-05-02  2:12   ` Robert Lee
2012-05-02  7:33   ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02  7:33     ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02 20:11     ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 20:11       ` Rob Lee
2012-05-03  6:39       ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-03  6:39         ` Sascha Hauer
2012-05-02  2:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: imx: Add imx6q " Robert Lee
2012-05-02  2:12   ` Robert Lee
2012-05-02  3:23   ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02  3:23     ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02 13:50     ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 13:50       ` Rob Lee
2012-05-02 13:53       ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02 13:53         ` Shawn Guo
2012-05-02  3:03 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add imx cpuidle Shawn Guo
2012-05-02  3:03   ` Shawn Guo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120502202101.GA16535@pengutronix.de \
    --to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=amit.kucheria@linaro.org \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=jj@chaosbits.net \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=rob.lee@linaro.org \
    --cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.