On Friday, February 08, 2013 11:24:39 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock > > > > Commit 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu" > > attempted to fix a bug in __cpufreq_remove_dev() by avoiding to > > remove the link to the "cpufreq" directory for policy->cpu, but it > > rearranged the code in such a way that sysfs_remove_link() ended up > > under a spinlock, which caused complaints about sleeping in atomic > > context to be emitted into the kernel log during system suspend. > > > > To fix this, revert commit 73bf0fc partially and move the > > sysfs_remove_link() in question to a separate block executed for > > cpus > 1 outside of the spinlock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > BTW, i have dropped this patch completely as i got another lock fixing > patch :) Sure, I suppose you can get a better fix. :-) 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
