On 07/29/2013 01:21 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Having a deeper look at it, though, I see that in fact the whole >> cpufreq_cpu_put() is needed if the CPU is not the last one for the given >> policy and is not needed at all otherwise (as described in the changelog >> of the patch below). >> >> Srivatsa, does this make sense to you? > > It makes atleast to me :) > >> This is not the only bad thing that happens there, however, because >> kobject_put() should only be called for the policy kobject at this >> point if the CPU is not the last one for that policy. >> >> Namely, if the given CPU is the last one for that policy, the >> policy kobject's refcount should be 1 at this point, as set by >> cpufreq_add_dev_interface(), and only needs to be dropped once for >> the kobject to go away. This actually happens under the cpu == 1 >> check, so it need not be done before by cpufreq_cpu_put(). > > But I see one more issue with this code. For the last cpu we are just > calling kobject_put() and not cpufreq_cpu_put() and hence call to > module_put() is skipped. I am not sure, but that will probably cause > a problem when we try to rmmod the module? But which module then? > As we can't compile cpufreq.c as module.. So, is this part of code junk? > And so can be removed? > I tried to address this concern in my other mail to Rafael. (Sorry I forgot to CC you on that!). Let me know what you think of that solution. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- 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
