![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 16 November 2008 Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Looks like the reason I couldn't find it was old cache on git.kernel.org or something like that as the matching commit now shows up. > > Reverting the change below makes the error go away. > > Does this smaller patch just make it go away? Yes, that smaller patch fixes it as well > 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 18:53 [W:0.284 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||