mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Holger Macht <holger@homac.de>
Cc: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:03:34 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202181251200.4819@eggly.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120218195722.GA2590@homac.suse.de>

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Sa 18. Feb - 10:46:04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > How about that one?
> > 
> > It's more broken than that.  Here's my attempt.  It boots on the
> > systems with dock_station_count 0, and it boots on my laptop with
> > dock_station_count 2; but I don't actually have any docking station,
> > so it still doesn't test very much (dock is 0 after the loop).
> 
> Well, there doesn't have to actually exist a physical dock station (or
> bay device) for dock_station_count to be > 0. It just tells that the
> ACPI objects are present and thus the system is capable of it.
> 
> So does this function actually also break on your laptop and you're
> getting the oops there, too?

It oopsed on the 4-year-old Fujitsu-Siemens laptop whose dock_station_count
was 0.  It did not oops on the new ThinkPad laptop whose dock_station_count
is 2, but no docks were found: so the function would only have been leaking
memory on that.

If docks were found, then I suspect it could have been scribbling, but I
cannot actually check if that's true (for all I know, dock_station_count
may be always 1 bigger than the most that that double loop can discover);
but at least the loop is now made safe against scribbling.

Hugh

  reply	other threads:[~2012-02-18 21:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-17 21:46 Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 22:42   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 23:01     ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 23:49       ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 11:14         ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:05           ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 13:26             ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:37               ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 14:04                 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 14:35                   ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 18:46                   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 19:57                     ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 21:03                       ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2012-02-18 21:50                         ` Holger Macht
2012-02-21 22:24                       ` Jeff Garzik
2012-02-21 22:30                         ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18  7:52       ` Hugh Dickins

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=alpine.LSU.2.00.1202181251200.4819@eggly.anvils \
    --to=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
    --cc=holger@homac.de \
    --cc=jgarzik@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mjg@redhat.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®