On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:40:25 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22 March 2013 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Which would be useful to write in the changelog, wouldn't it? > > Hmm.. > > copy-paste with gmail is also broken, so find it attached too. > > New change log, no change in patch and you can trust me on that :) OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Thanks, Rafael > ----------x-------------x-------- > > From 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > Message-Id: <034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10.1363954124.git.viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:15:48 +0530 > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to > cpufreq_cpu_get > > 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. > > We will get a hang if somehow cpufreq_driver_unregister() is called. And that > can happen when we compile our driver as module and insmod/rmmod it. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
