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
next prev parent 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®