On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock > > Commit 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu" > attempted to fix a bug in __cpufreq_remove_dev() by avoiding to > remove the link to the "cpufreq" directory for policy->cpu, but it > rearranged the code in such a way that sysfs_remove_link() ended up > under a spinlock, which caused complaints about sleeping in atomic > context to be emitted into the kernel log during system suspend. > > To fix this, revert commit 73bf0fc partially and move the > sysfs_remove_link() in question to a separate block executed for > cpus > 1 outside of the spinlock. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
BTW, i have dropped this patch completely as i got another lock fixing patch :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
