I just realized I missed answering few questions:
On 24 July 2013 13:13, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 02:05 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 24 July 2013 06:55, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2013 07:11 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 18 July 2013 16:47, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> +static void cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>>>> + unsigned int new_cpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct dentry *old_entry, *new_entry;
>>>>> + char new_dir_name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
>>>>> + unsigned int j, old_cpu = policy->cpu;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!policy->cpu_debugfs[new_cpu])
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Remove symbolic link of debugfs directory except for debugfs
>>>>> + * directory of old_cpu.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + for_each_present_cpu(j) {
>>>>> + if (old_cpu == j)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + debugfs_remove(policy->cpu_debugfs[j]);
>>>>
>>>> Why you need this? We aren't removing the earlier dentry at all here.
>>
>> haven't answered this.
>
> The debugfs entry of 'old_cpu' include child debugfs file(e.g., load_table)
> If cpu is last user of policy and core call __cpufre_remove_dev() to remove last cpu,
> core call cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(). I have to move the data of debugfs directory/file and
> child data for 'old_cpu' to debugfs directory for 'new_cpu'.
>
> If I remove earlier dentry of 'old_cpu', I can't get the child debugfs dir/file.
> So I didn't remove the earlier dentry of 'old_cpu'.
Okay.. The original question was: why do you need to remove & add
entries or links for cpus other than policy->cpu? Because we are renaming
the entry, wouldn't that work straight away?
--
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
