On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq code..
> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then I can't
> think of anything better than what your patch does.
Good :)
> BTW, off-topic, while going through that path, I think I found a memory leak
> in __cpufreq_remove_dev():
>
> if (unlikely(cpumask_weight(data->cpus) > 1)) {
> for_each_cpu(j, data->cpus) {
> if (j == cpu)
> continue;
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> We are assigning NULL without freeing that memory.
Not really. All cpus in affected_cpus (data->cpus), share the same
policy structure.
We have already taken backup of cpufreq_cpu_data for the first cpu in "data" and
are freeing it here:
kfree(data);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
