On 18 September 2013 12:39, Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/17/2013 09:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The code looks good, but the patch doesn't apply properly, because of the code > change that went in in your patch "cpufreq: Clear policy->cpus bits in > __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()". Hmm.. Because of the number of patches floating now a days, it is getting more and more complex.. I will sort things out once Rafael starts picking stuff for 3.13.. >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h >> + /* >> + * The rules for this semaphore: >> + * - Any routine that wants to read from the policy structure will >> + * do a down_read on this semaphore. >> + * - Any routine that will write to the policy structure and/or may >> take away >> + * the policy altogether (eg. CPU hotplug), will hold this lock in >> write >> + * mode before doing so. >> + * >> + * Additional rules: >> + * - Governor routines that can be called in cpufreq hotplug path >> should not >> + * take this sem as top level hotplug notifier handler takes this. > > I think this comment is obsolete. I don't see the top-level hotplug notifier > handler > (cpufreq_cpu_callback) acquiring the rwsem. Good to fix this comment while we > are > at it, perhaps in a separate patch. (The comment above __cpufreq_remove_dev > about > the policy-rwsem appears to be similarly out of date). Yeah.. Will get that done, but will send these again only once Rafael is picking stuff for 3.13.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
