| Message ID | 20240411231818.2471-1-sensor1010@163.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: Fixed kernel crash caused by cpufreq issues | expand |
On 11-04-24, 16:18, Lizhe wrote: > When the cpufreq_driver does not provide an exit() function. > cpufreq offline operations can result in a kernel crash. > > Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 04d349372de3..e8660bc7d232 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1739,7 +1739,7 @@ static void cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > } > > /* We did light-weight exit earlier, do full tear down now */ > - if (cpufreq_driver->offline) > + if (cpufreq_driver->offline && cpufreq_driver->exit) > cpufreq_driver->exit(policy); > > up_write(&policy->rwsem); Hmm, saw this just now. Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:19 AM Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> wrote: > > When the cpufreq_driver does not provide an exit() function. > cpufreq offline operations can result in a kernel crash. > > Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 04d349372de3..e8660bc7d232 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1739,7 +1739,7 @@ static void cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > } > > /* We did light-weight exit earlier, do full tear down now */ > - if (cpufreq_driver->offline) > + if (cpufreq_driver->offline && cpufreq_driver->exit) > cpufreq_driver->exit(policy); > > up_write(&policy->rwsem); > -- I've applied the patch from Viresh that addresses both issues with missing ->exit() driver callback checks and therefore is more complete. Also I'm not going to apply any other patches you have sent because there were obvious mistakes in some of them and you sent updates without version numbering and without any information regarding what changed with respect to the previous version(s). Also some patches were sent in multiple copies (I think) without telling me which one to look at. All of that is too confusing to be treated seriously and quite disrespectful to the prospective reviewers (who might allocate their time to more productive things). If you want to send the changes once again, it is fine because they generally do some nice cleanups, but please follow the patch submission and kernel development process documentation as Greg has already advised you. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 04d349372de3..e8660bc7d232 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1739,7 +1739,7 @@ static void cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) } /* We did light-weight exit earlier, do full tear down now */ - if (cpufreq_driver->offline) + if (cpufreq_driver->offline && cpufreq_driver->exit) cpufreq_driver->exit(policy); up_write(&policy->rwsem);
When the cpufreq_driver does not provide an exit() function. cpufreq offline operations can result in a kernel crash. Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)