Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:16:10 +0800 | From | Chen Gang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kernel/padata.c: always check the return value of __padata_remove_cpu() and __padata_add_cpu() |
| |
On 08/22/2013 02:05 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:27:16PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> On 08/22/2013 01:11 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:44:31AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> >>>> If this patch is correct, better to let CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED >>>> share the same code. >>>> >>>> And do we need a comment "/* fall through */" between CPU_UP_CANCELED >>>> and CPU_DOWN_FAILED (or it is another bug, need a 'break' statement) ? >>>> >>>> At last, also better to let CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and CPU_UP_CANCELED share >>>> the same code (if need a 'break'), or share the most of code (if "fall >>>> through"). >>>> >>> >>> CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED can share the code. Same is true for >>> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and CPU_UP_CANCELED. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >> >> Thank you too. >> >> And need I send another patch for it ? >> >> Or just make by yourself (and better to mark me as Reported-by). :-) >> > > You found the problem, feel free to send a patch. > >
Thanks, I will send patch v2 for it.
-- Chen Gang
| |