On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:02:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 June 2013 19:58, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:18:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > >> I am not sure if this is enough. What if we had ondemand as the > >> governor initially, then we changed it to something else. Now also > >> cur_policy contains a address and isn't zero. > > > > Right, so we check below .. > > > >> > >> > cpumask_or(&done, &done, policy->cpus); > >> > + > >> > + if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_ondemand) > >> > + continue; > > > > This should catch that case no ? > > Policy might be freed and reallocated by then. And so doing > policy->governor is dangerous. Hm . any hints on how to check for if ondemand is running on this CPU or not ? I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is .. Thanks, -- 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
