Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 | Date | Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:32:39 +0100 |
| |
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > I should have done that before, sorry about it. > > > > Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and > > try to avoid introducing new issues this time? > > Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all applied > patches in this branch.
The top-most commit in that branch is
commit 73bf0fc2b03d1f4fdada0ec430dc20bfb089cfd5 Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Date: Tue Feb 5 22:21:14 2013 +0100
cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu
because that's when the locking problems were first reported and I stopped putting new commits into that branch. And since the locking problems were introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" I want them to be fixed on top of pm-cpufreq rather than on top of more new stuff that very well may introduce *more* problems.
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" separately and *then* any other locking problems you're seeing in the code, although people are not reporting them.
You seem to have a clear picture of how the code should work now, so that won't be a big trouble I guess.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |