On Friday, March 22, 2013 04:47:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22 March 2013 16:42, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() > >> with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as > >> zero. > > > > Rafael, > > > > Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and > > re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will > > this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9? > > > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Acked-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sorry i forgot to mention, this should be pushed for next rc. Well, -rc5 is a realistic target. 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
