On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
--
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
