Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc5

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

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);