On 03-02-16, 11:05, Juri Lelli wrote:
> It should be easy to rebase that set (or a part of it) on top of your
> and/or Rafael changes. I realize that there are multiple sets of changes
> under discussion; so, please tell me how do you, and Rafael, want to
> proceed about this.
Yeah, please wait
On 03/02/16 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-02-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > There are still paths where we call __cpufreq_governor() without holding
> > policy->rwsem, but those should be fixed with my cleanups (that I intend
> > to refresh and post soon). So, I'm not sure we can safely
On 03-02-16, 11:05, Juri Lelli wrote:
> It should be easy to rebase that set (or a part of it) on top of your
> and/or Rafael changes. I realize that there are multiple sets of changes
> under discussion; so, please tell me how do you, and Rafael, want to
> proceed about this.
Yeah, please wait
On 03/02/16 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-02-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > There are still paths where we call __cpufreq_governor() without holding
> > policy->rwsem, but those should be fixed with my cleanups (that I intend
> > to refresh and post soon). So, I'm not sure we can safely
On 02-02-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> There are still paths where we call __cpufreq_governor() without holding
> policy->rwsem, but those should be fixed with my cleanups (that I intend
> to refresh and post soon). So, I'm not sure we can safely remove this
> yet.
No, we can't.. Though I
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now
What about the governors that don't use cpufreq_governor_dbs()?
> and there is no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
> policy->rwsem anymore, which makes
Hi Viresh,
On 02/02/16 16:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now and there is
> no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
> policy->rwsem anymore, which makes rest of the races go away.
There are still paths where we call
Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now and there is
no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
policy->rwsem anymore, which makes rest of the races go away.
Simplify code a bit now.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 24
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now
What about the governors that don't use cpufreq_governor_dbs()?
> and there is no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
> policy->rwsem
On 02-02-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> There are still paths where we call __cpufreq_governor() without holding
> policy->rwsem, but those should be fixed with my cleanups (that I intend
> to refresh and post soon). So, I'm not sure we can safely remove this
> yet.
No, we can't.. Though I
Hi Viresh,
On 02/02/16 16:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now and there is
> no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
> policy->rwsem anymore, which makes rest of the races go away.
There are still paths where we call
Invalid state-transitions is verified by governor core now and there is
no need to replicate that in cpufreq core. Also we don't drop
policy->rwsem anymore, which makes rest of the races go away.
Simplify code a bit now.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
12 matches
Mail list logo