![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread Patch in this message |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Bruno Prémont wrote: > > The following change is guilty on my machine (though I could not find > the matching commit on git.kernel.org :( ) It's commit 0794469da3f7b2093575cbdfc1108308dd3641ce: "ACPI: struct device - replace bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name()", and yes, it seems totally buggy. It replaced a test for "dev->bus" with "dev_name(dev)", which makes no sense. > Reverting the change below makes the error go away. Does this smaller patch just make it go away? That said, that whole function looks potentially buggy. Len - why is it safe to do "list_for_each_safe()" when you drop the acpi_device_lock in the middle? The "next" pointer that we look up may go away while the lock is dropped, I think. Linus --- drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c index 64e591b..4dbc227 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c @@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ acpi_system_wakeup_device_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *offset) dev->wakeup.state.enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled"); if (ldev) seq_printf(seq, "%s:%s", - dev_name(ldev) ? ldev->bus->name : "no-bus", + ldev->bus ? ldev->bus->name : "no-bus", dev_name(ldev)); seq_printf(seq, "\n"); put_device(ldev); -- 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-11-16 18:27 [W:1.480 / U:0.100 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||