On 8/29/19 12:56 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Hi Joao,
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:56:50PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
>> +static void haltpoll_uninit(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + cpus_read_lock();
>> +
>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> + struct cpuidle_device *dev =
>> + per_cpu_ptr(haltpoll_cpuidle_devices, cpu);
>> +
>> + if (!dev->registered)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + arch_haltpoll_disable(cpu);
>> + cpuidle_unregister_device(dev);
>> + }
>
> 1)
>
>> +
>> + cpuidle_unregister(&haltpoll_driver);
>
> cpuidle_unregister_driver.
Will fix -- this was an oversight.
>
>> + free_percpu(haltpoll_cpuidle_devices);
>> + haltpoll_cpuidle_devices = NULL;
>> +
>> + cpus_read_unlock();
>
> Any reason you can't cpus_read_unlock() at 1) ?
>
No, let me adjust that too.
> Looks good otherwise.
>
> Thanks!
>
Thanks for the review!
Joao
