Hi Stephen,
Thanks for reviewing.
On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:03:40 +0530 Trinabh Gupta<trinabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
+static int apm_setup_cpuidle(int cpu)
+{
+ struct cpuidle_device *dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cpuidle_device),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
Same as xen comments: no NULL check.
+ int count = CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START;
+ dev->cpu = cpu;
+ dev->drv =&apm_idle_driver;
Also wondering why you would ever have a different idle routine on
different cpus?
Yes, this is an ongoing debate. Apparently it is a possibility
because of ACPI bugs. CPU's can have asymmetric C-states
and overall different idle routines on different cpus. Please
refer to http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/24/132 and
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/10/37 for a discussion around this.
I have posted a patch series that does global registration
i.e same idle routines for each cpu. Please check
http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/22/161 . That series applies on
top of this series. Global registration significantly
simplifies the design, but still we are not sure about the
direction to take.
+
+ dev->states[count] = state_apm_idle;
+ count++;
+
+ dev->state_count = count;
+
+ if (cpuidle_register_device(dev))
+ return -EIO;
And we leak dev.
+static void apm_idle_exit(void)
+{
+ cpuidle_unregister_driver(&apm_idle_driver);
Do we leak the per cpu device structure here?
I will see how we can save
per cpu device structure pointers so that we can free them.
+ return;
Unnecessary return statement.
Thanks,
-Trinabh
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
| 
Home